Mark Borgerson wrote:

In any case, ALL power/speed curves seem to be asymptotic
to c (speed of light).

How's that for a 'reductio ad absurdum' argument?

Excellent. And BTW thanks, I was beginning to think that nobody around
here has a sense of humor.

DSK

"Mark Borgerson" wrote in message
t...

In any case, ALL power/speed curves seem to be asymptotic
to c (speed of light).

Duh, that's only a theory. Nobody actually tested that...... :-))

Meindert

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 19:56:51 GMT, Mark Borgerson
wrote:


In any case, ALL power/speed curves seem to be asymptotic
to c (speed of light).


True enough. That is a real asymptote.




Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a


Does one child rape really change Strom Thurmond's lifetime record?
For better or worse?

Until you get past Mach 1, at least! ;-) after that point,
there are some inflection points in the power/speed curve, IIRC.

no, you don't remember any such thing. unless of course you were stoned out of
your gourd in your fourth sophomore year in college.

rod, you were doing well up until this point:

In any case, ALL power/speed curves seem to be asymptotic
to c (speed of light).


True enough. That is a real asymptote.




Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a


Does one child rape really change Strom Thurmond's lifetime record?
For better or worse?

In article ,
says...
Until you get past Mach 1, at least! ;-) after that point,
there are some inflection points in the power/speed curve, IIRC.

no, you don't remember any such thing. unless of course you were stoned out of
your gourd in your fourth sophomore year in college.


Whoa! You must have me mixed up with someone who went to UC Berkely in
the 60's. My sophomore year was at UC Davis in '65 and we weren't
smoking much grass at all! (although there were probaby a lot of
students figuring out how to optimize the yield---Davis being a
world-class agricultural school) ;-)


As for inflection points, consult the definition at

http://www.math.com/tables/derivatives/extrema.htm

and look at the following crude graphic

*
*
*
*
P *
*
O *
*
W *
*
E
*
R *
*

************************************************** ******************
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

MACH NUMBER


There is an inflection point at about Mach 1. However there is no point
on the graph where you get an increase in speed without an increase in
power.

If you look at the engine data at
http://www.voodoo.cz/hornet/info.html

you will find that the F-18 engines develop about 14,000 pounds thrust
at full military power and 21,000 pounds at full afterburner. Yet
it takes full military power to get to mach 1, but with 50%
more power, you can end up at mach 1.8. Thus the inflection
point just past mach 1. (Like most modern military jets prior to
the F-22, the F-18 cannot sustain supersonic speeds in level flight
without afterburners.)

If you have more detailed power/speed curves for the transonic region,
feel free to post some links to enlighten us.


Mark Borgerson

mark, that ain't no asymptote.

duh.


From: Mark Borgerson
Date: 9/3/2004 11:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
says...
Until you get past Mach 1, at least! ;-) after that point,
there are some inflection points in the power/speed curve, IIRC.

no, you don't remember any such thing. unless of course you were stoned
out of
your gourd in your fourth sophomore year in college.


Whoa! You must have me mixed up with someone who went to UC Berkely in
the 60's. My sophomore year was at UC Davis in '65 and we weren't
smoking much grass at all! (although there were probaby a lot of
students figuring out how to optimize the yield---Davis being a
world-class agricultural school) ;-)


As for inflection points, consult the definition at

http://www.math.com/tables/derivatives/extrema.htm

and look at the following crude graphic

*
*
*
*
P *
*
O *
*
W *
*
E
*
R *
*

************************************************* *******************
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

MACH NUMBER


There is an inflection point at about Mach 1. However there is no point
on the graph where you get an increase in speed without an increase in
power.

If you look at the engine data at
http://www.voodoo.cz/hornet/info.html

you will find that the F-18 engines develop about 14,000 pounds thrust
at full military power and 21,000 pounds at full afterburner. Yet
it takes full military power to get to mach 1, but with 50%
more power, you can end up at mach 1.8. Thus the inflection
point just past mach 1. (Like most modern military jets prior to
the F-22, the F-18 cannot sustain supersonic speeds in level flight
without afterburners.)

If you have more detailed power/speed curves for the transonic region,
feel free to post some links to enlighten us.


Mark Borgerson

mark, the transision for sub-sonic to super-sonic is in no way related in any
way to a discussion of "hull speed" in sailboats.

duh.

From: Mark Borgerson
Date: 9/3/2004 11:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
says...
Until you get past Mach 1, at least! ;-) after that point,
there are some inflection points in the power/speed curve, IIRC.

no, you don't remember any such thing. unless of course you were stoned
out of
your gourd in your fourth sophomore year in college.


Whoa! You must have me mixed up with someone who went to UC Berkely in
the 60's. My sophomore year was at UC Davis in '65 and we weren't
smoking much grass at all! (although there were probaby a lot of
students figuring out how to optimize the yield---Davis being a
world-class agricultural school) ;-)


As for inflection points, consult the definition at

http://www.math.com/tables/derivatives/extrema.htm

and look at the following crude graphic

*
*
*
*
P *
*
O *
*
W *
*
E
*
R *
*

************************************************* *******************
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

MACH NUMBER


There is an inflection point at about Mach 1. However there is no point
on the graph where you get an increase in speed without an increase in
power.

If you look at the engine data at
http://www.voodoo.cz/hornet/info.html

you will find that the F-18 engines develop about 14,000 pounds thrust
at full military power and 21,000 pounds at full afterburner. Yet
it takes full military power to get to mach 1, but with 50%
more power, you can end up at mach 1.8. Thus the inflection
point just past mach 1. (Like most modern military jets prior to
the F-22, the F-18 cannot sustain supersonic speeds in level flight
without afterburners.)

If you have more detailed power/speed curves for the transonic region,
feel free to post some links to enlighten us.


Mark Borgerson

In article ,
says...
mark, that ain't no asymptote.

duh.

Duh! Perhaps you'll re-read the part below and find I never said it
was an asymptote. I said there are inflection points in the
power speed curve. The only asymptote I've mentioned is
the one at c.

Mark Borgerson



From: Mark Borgerson
Date: 9/3/2004 11:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
says...
Until you get past Mach 1, at least! ;-) after that point,
there are some inflection points in the power/speed curve, IIRC.

no, you don't remember any such thing. unless of course you were stoned
out of
your gourd in your fourth sophomore year in college.


Whoa! You must have me mixed up with someone who went to UC Berkely in
the 60's. My sophomore year was at UC Davis in '65 and we weren't
smoking much grass at all! (although there were probaby a lot of
students figuring out how to optimize the yield---Davis being a
world-class agricultural school) ;-)


As for inflection points, consult the definition at

http://www.math.com/tables/derivatives/extrema.htm

and look at the following crude graphic

*
*
*
*
P *
*
O *
*
W *
*
E
*
R *
*

************************************************* *******************
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

MACH NUMBER


There is an inflection point at about Mach 1. However there is no point
on the graph where you get an increase in speed without an increase in
power.

If you look at the engine data at
http://www.voodoo.cz/hornet/info.html

you will find that the F-18 engines develop about 14,000 pounds thrust
at full military power and 21,000 pounds at full afterburner. Yet
it takes full military power to get to mach 1, but with 50%
more power, you can end up at mach 1.8. Thus the inflection
point just past mach 1. (Like most modern military jets prior to
the F-22, the F-18 cannot sustain supersonic speeds in level flight
without afterburners.)

If you have more detailed power/speed curves for the transonic region,
feel free to post some links to enlighten us.


Mark Borgerson

In article ,
says...
mark, the transision for sub-sonic to super-sonic is in no way related in any
way to a discussion of "hull speed" in sailboats.


Except that both power/speed curves show inflection points, I suppose.
The change in curvature is even more pronounced as a sailboat goes
from hull speed to planing speed, though.

duh.

Sounds like the observation of someone who has lost an argument! ;-)



Mark Borgerson


From: Mark Borgerson
Date: 9/3/2004 11:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
says...
Until you get past Mach 1, at least! ;-) after that point,
there are some inflection points in the power/speed curve, IIRC.

no, you don't remember any such thing. unless of course you were stoned
out of
your gourd in your fourth sophomore year in college.


Whoa! You must have me mixed up with someone who went to UC Berkely in
the 60's. My sophomore year was at UC Davis in '65 and we weren't
smoking much grass at all! (although there were probaby a lot of
students figuring out how to optimize the yield---Davis being a
world-class agricultural school) ;-)


As for inflection points, consult the definition at

http://www.math.com/tables/derivatives/extrema.htm

and look at the following crude graphic

*
*
*
*
P *
*
O *
*
W *
*
E
*
R *
*

************************************************* *******************
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

MACH NUMBER


There is an inflection point at about Mach 1. However there is no point
on the graph where you get an increase in speed without an increase in
power.

If you look at the engine data at
http://www.voodoo.cz/hornet/info.html

you will find that the F-18 engines develop about 14,000 pounds thrust
at full military power and 21,000 pounds at full afterburner. Yet
it takes full military power to get to mach 1, but with 50%
more power, you can end up at mach 1.8. Thus the inflection
point just past mach 1. (Like most modern military jets prior to
the F-22, the F-18 cannot sustain supersonic speeds in level flight
without afterburners.)

If you have more detailed power/speed curves for the transonic region,
feel free to post some links to enlighten us.


Mark Borgerson

dood, there ain't no asymptote no where.

duh.

never let it be said you are concerned with reality, merk.

From: Mark Borgerson
Date: 9/5/2004 7:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
says...
mark, that ain't no asymptote.

duh.

Duh! Perhaps you'll re-read the part below and find I never said it
was an asymptote. I said there are inflection points in the
power speed curve. The only asymptote I've mentioned is
the one at c.

Mark Borgerson



From: Mark Borgerson
Date: 9/3/2004 11:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
says...
Until you get past Mach 1, at least! ;-) after that point,
there are some inflection points in the power/speed curve, IIRC.

no, you don't remember any such thing. unless of course you were stoned
out of
your gourd in your fourth sophomore year in college.


Whoa! You must have me mixed up with someone who went to UC Berkely in
the 60's. My sophomore year was at UC Davis in '65 and we weren't
smoking much grass at all! (although there were probaby a lot of
students figuring out how to optimize the yield---Davis being a
world-class agricultural school) ;-)


As for inflection points, consult the definition at

http://www.math.com/tables/derivatives/extrema.htm

and look at the following crude graphic

*
*
*
*
P *
*
O *
*
W *
*
E
*
R *
*

************************************************* *******************
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

MACH NUMBER


There is an inflection point at about Mach 1. However there is no point
on the graph where you get an increase in speed without an increase in
power.

If you look at the engine data at
http://www.voodoo.cz/hornet/info.html

you will find that the F-18 engines develop about 14,000 pounds thrust
at full military power and 21,000 pounds at full afterburner. Yet
it takes full military power to get to mach 1, but with 50%
more power, you can end up at mach 1.8. Thus the inflection
point just past mach 1. (Like most modern military jets prior to
the F-22, the F-18 cannot sustain supersonic speeds in level flight
without afterburners.)

If you have more detailed power/speed curves for the transonic region,
feel free to post some links to enlighten us.


Mark Borgerson

The change in curvature is even more pronounced as a sailboat goes
from hull speed to planing speed, though.

bull****,marke. now, go back to study hall. lunch period isn't for 45 minutes
yet.

geesh.

In article ,
says...
The change in curvature is even more pronounced as a sailboat goes
from hull speed to planing speed, though.

bull****,marke. now, go back to study hall. lunch period isn't for 45 minutes
yet.


Well, since your message was posted at 6:43 PM, I've got to assume that
you're still studying at night school. Enjoy your lunch! Those of
us who finished high school (and college) eat dinner about that time.




Mark Borgerson

In article ,
says...
dood, there ain't no asymptote no where.

duh.

never let it be said you are concerned with reality, merk.


In any case, I was apparently more concerned with my English and
typing classes than you.


Mark Borgerson


From: Mark Borgerson
Date: 9/5/2004 7:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
says...
mark, that ain't no asymptote.

duh.

Duh! Perhaps you'll re-read the part below and find I never said it
was an asymptote. I said there are inflection points in the
power speed curve. The only asymptote I've mentioned is
the one at c.

Mark Borgerson



From: Mark Borgerson
Date: 9/3/2004 11:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
says...
Until you get past Mach 1, at least! ;-) after that point,
there are some inflection points in the power/speed curve, IIRC.

no, you don't remember any such thing. unless of course you were stoned
out of
your gourd in your fourth sophomore year in college.


Whoa! You must have me mixed up with someone who went to UC Berkely in
the 60's. My sophomore year was at UC Davis in '65 and we weren't
smoking much grass at all! (although there were probaby a lot of
students figuring out how to optimize the yield---Davis being a
world-class agricultural school) ;-)


As for inflection points, consult the definition at

http://www.math.com/tables/derivatives/extrema.htm

and look at the following crude graphic

*
*
*
*
P *
*
O *
*
W *
*
E
*
R *
*

************************************************* *******************
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

MACH NUMBER


There is an inflection point at about Mach 1. However there is no point
on the graph where you get an increase in speed without an increase in
power.

If you look at the engine data at
http://www.voodoo.cz/hornet/info.html

you will find that the F-18 engines develop about 14,000 pounds thrust
at full military power and 21,000 pounds at full afterburner. Yet
it takes full military power to get to mach 1, but with 50%
more power, you can end up at mach 1.8. Thus the inflection
point just past mach 1. (Like most modern military jets prior to
the F-22, the F-18 cannot sustain supersonic speeds in level flight
without afterburners.)

If you have more detailed power/speed curves for the transonic region,
feel free to post some links to enlighten us.


Mark Borgerson

mark, you said 'asymptote", and none exists. *that* is bad English?

It seems to me more likely that you didn't have a clew what the word meant, and
you used it anyway to "prove" to one and all what a genius you are.

remember, the term entered this thread when some fraud claiming to be a college
professor totally misused the word.

mark, were that fraud?


From: Mark Borgerson
Date: 9/6/2004 1:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
says...
dood, there ain't no asymptote no where.

duh.

never let it be said you are concerned with reality, merk.


In any case, I was apparently more concerned with my English and
typing classes than you.


Mark Borgerson


From: Mark Borgerson
Date: 9/5/2004 7:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
says...
mark, that ain't no asymptote.

duh.

Duh! Perhaps you'll re-read the part below and find I never said it
was an asymptote. I said there are inflection points in the
power speed curve. The only asymptote I've mentioned is
the one at c.

Mark Borgerson



From: Mark Borgerson
Date: 9/3/2004 11:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
says...
Until you get past Mach 1, at least! ;-) after that point,
there are some inflection points in the power/speed curve, IIRC.

no, you don't remember any such thing. unless of course you were
stoned
out of
your gourd in your fourth sophomore year in college.


Whoa! You must have me mixed up with someone who went to UC Berkely
in
the 60's. My sophomore year was at UC Davis in '65 and we weren't
smoking much grass at all! (although there were probaby a lot of
students figuring out how to optimize the yield---Davis being a
world-class agricultural school) ;-)


As for inflection points, consult the definition at

http://www.math.com/tables/derivatives/extrema.htm

and look at the following crude graphic

*
*
*
*
P *
*
O *
*
W *
*
E
*
R *
*

************************************************* *******************
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

MACH NUMBER


There is an inflection point at about Mach 1. However there is no
point
on the graph where you get an increase in speed without an increase in

power.

If you look at the engine data at
http://www.voodoo.cz/hornet/info.html

you will find that the F-18 engines develop about 14,000 pounds thrust
at full military power and 21,000 pounds at full afterburner. Yet
it takes full military power to get to mach 1, but with 50%
more power, you can end up at mach 1.8. Thus the inflection
point just past mach 1. (Like most modern military jets prior to
the F-22, the F-18 cannot sustain supersonic speeds in level flight
without afterburners.)

If you have more detailed power/speed curves for the transonic region,
feel free to post some links to enlighten us.


Mark Borgerson

In article ,
says...
mark, you said 'asymptote", and none exists. *that* is bad English?

Is that a question? I guess it is bad English to mix single and double
quotation marks around a word.

It seems to me more likely that you didn't have a clew what the word meant, and
you used it anyway to "prove" to one and all what a genius you are.

Wow-- a real sailorly pun---substituting 'clew' for 'clue'! Are you
sure you aren't a few sheets to the wind?


As for 'asymptote', I did post a reference to a web site defining the
three types of asymptote. In case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.math.com/tables/derivatives/extrema.htm

The speed of light would seem to fit the definition of a vertical
asymptote, since no KNOWN amount of power will move a boat's speed
past that line. However, if you have evidence to the contrary,
feel free to share!



remember, the term entered this thread when some fraud claiming to be a college
professor totally misused the word.

mark, were that fraud?

If you mean was I the person claiming to be a college professor, the
answer is no.

If you mean 'Was that fraud' I don't know because I don't know the
person who posted that.

You really should ask your ISP why it keeps dropping words from your
postings---sometimes rendering them incomprehensible.


Mark Borgerson






SNIP

yup, you be that fraud.

From: Mark Borgerson
Date: 9/6/2004 11:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
says...
mark, you said 'asymptote", and none exists. *that* is bad English?

Is that a question? I guess it is bad English to mix single and double
quotation marks around a word.

It seems to me more likely that you didn't have a clew what the word meant,
and
you used it anyway to "prove" to one and all what a genius you are.

Wow-- a real sailorly pun---substituting 'clew' for 'clue'! Are you
sure you aren't a few sheets to the wind?


As for 'asymptote', I did post a reference to a web site defining the
three types of asymptote. In case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.math.com/tables/derivatives/extrema.htm

The speed of light would seem to fit the definition of a vertical
asymptote, since no KNOWN amount of power will move a boat's speed
past that line. However, if you have evidence to the contrary,
feel free to share!



remember, the term entered this thread when some fraud claiming to be a
college
professor totally misused the word.

mark, were that fraud?

If you mean was I the person claiming to be a college professor, the
answer is no.

If you mean 'Was that fraud' I don't know because I don't know the
person who posted that.

You really should ask your ISP why it keeps dropping words from your
postings---sometimes rendering them incomprehensible.


Mark Borgerson






SNIP

In article ,
says...

Jax,
yup, you be that fraud.

You really ouught to talk to your ISP. They keep substituting the
words of a petulant teenager suffering from hormonal overdose for
your cogent, well-supported arguments.


Hey---I wonder if it works both ways?............

***********************************************
Yo Jax! I not be dat professor Man!
Only in de compote in yo hwed
Is dat asymptote sumpin' u see
cummin' from my machine
to dem words u tink u red!

Wot u Red 'n wot I sed
seems to be like majic
changed to wat u like.
But like dat dutch boy an d' dyke--
It's time to pull it out and see
wat color your thumb be!

Lick it 'n switch it, baby!

************************************************** ***


Hmmm, I wonder if AOL translated that properly!

Jax must be Google-groups deprived, or he would have
the attributions straight by now.


Mark Borgerson



From: Mark Borgerson
Date: 9/6/2004 11:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
says...
mark, you said 'asymptote", and none exists. *that* is bad English?

Is that a question? I guess it is bad English to mix single and double
quotation marks around a word.

It seems to me more likely that you didn't have a clew what the word meant,
and
you used it anyway to "prove" to one and all what a genius you are.

Wow-- a real sailorly pun---substituting 'clew' for 'clue'! Are you
sure you aren't a few sheets to the wind?


As for 'asymptote', I did post a reference to a web site defining the
three types of asymptote. In case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.math.com/tables/derivatives/extrema.htm

The speed of light would seem to fit the definition of a vertical
asymptote, since no KNOWN amount of power will move a boat's speed
past that line. However, if you have evidence to the contrary,
feel free to share!



remember, the term entered this thread when some fraud claiming to be a
college
professor totally misused the word.

mark, were that fraud?

If you mean was I the person claiming to be a college professor, the
answer is no.

If you mean 'Was that fraud' I don't know because I don't know the
person who posted that.

You really should ask your ISP why it keeps dropping words from your
postings---sometimes rendering them incomprehensible.


Mark Borgerson






SNIP

mark give up. the curve of hull speed has no asymptote.

that makes you a fraud.

From: Mark Borgerson
Date: 9/7/2004 12:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
says...

Jax,
yup, you be that fraud.

You really ouught to talk to your ISP. They keep substituting the
words of a petulant teenager suffering from hormonal overdose for
your cogent, well-supported arguments.


Hey---I wonder if it works both ways?............

***********************************************
Yo Jax! I not be dat professor Man!
Only in de compote in yo hwed
Is dat asymptote sumpin' u see
cummin' from my machine
to dem words u tink u red!

Wot u Red 'n wot I sed
seems to be like majic
changed to wat u like.
But like dat dutch boy an d' dyke--
It's time to pull it out and see
wat color your thumb be!

Lick it 'n switch it, baby!

************************************************* ****


Hmmm, I wonder if AOL translated that properly!

Jax must be Google-groups deprived, or he would have
the attributions straight by now.


Mark Borgerson



From: Mark Borgerson
Date: 9/6/2004 11:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
says...
mark, you said 'asymptote", and none exists. *that* is bad English?

Is that a question? I guess it is bad English to mix single and double
quotation marks around a word.

It seems to me more likely that you didn't have a clew what the word
meant,
and
you used it anyway to "prove" to one and all what a genius you are.

Wow-- a real sailorly pun---substituting 'clew' for 'clue'! Are you
sure you aren't a few sheets to the wind?


As for 'asymptote', I did post a reference to a web site defining the
three types of asymptote. In case you missed it, here it is again:

http://www.math.com/tables/derivatives/extrema.htm

The speed of light would seem to fit the definition of a vertical
asymptote, since no KNOWN amount of power will move a boat's speed
past that line. However, if you have evidence to the contrary,
feel free to share!



remember, the term entered this thread when some fraud claiming to be a
college
professor totally misused the word.

mark, were that fraud?

If you mean was I the person claiming to be a college professor, the
answer is no.

If you mean 'Was that fraud' I don't know because I don't know the
person who posted that.

You really should ask your ISP why it keeps dropping words from your
postings---sometimes rendering them incomprehensible.


Mark Borgerson






SNIP

Skipper wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:46:31 GMT, Dan Best wrote:

This weekend in Olympia, Washington State, is the Harbor Days
festival. During Harbor Days are the well-known tug boat races. As a
sailor, I understand bow waves, hull speeds, and displacement hulls.
It is a pretty good bet that the 70' tug will beat the 35' tug. I
think the longer tug could win with the engine just above an idle.

But it is really amazing to watch the bow wave dynamics in action.
A 30 foot tug with 600 horsepower can build a HUGE bow wave and still
not pass its hull speed. The waves generated in this race are far
greater than the waves from cargo ships that are 10 times as long and
1,000 times larger.


Boring to watch, after a very short while.

The spectacle of this thread, that is.

Just because a bulldozer is pushing a large pile of dirt does not
mean that it has failed to exceed hull speed.

Hull speed is only a theoretically derived number. It is a gauge of
relative numerical relationships; it is not something like the speed
of light, or even the speed of sound. It's kind of like saying hands
have 5 fingers, and figuring their average length. It is not a
limit, except perhaps to fuel efficiency calculations.

Does bring to mind the Hobie style catamaran planing concept,
though. It's kind of like squeezing a watermelon seed in snotty fingers.

We need to remember there are several different factors affecting
drag and dynamic forces at work in various hull types and speed
regimes. Fuel consumption in a sailboat is possible to imply, but
impossible to measure.

I prefer to ponder the "Stove pipe submarine" and it's wake, for a
starting point. It will lead us towards some interesting insights.

Submarines are theoretically detectable from orbit by wake analysis,
amid the chaos of wave noise. Well, it's not noise, folks, its only
chaotic because we cannot measure the causative forces in sufficient
detail, and that is all. If you examine bible message analysis, it
soon becomes obvious that you can find any message, in any language,
even looking for french in a chinese translation. It all depends on
generating the right key, and mowing enough grass, as we say in the
processor hall air conditioning department.

Anyway, if a submarine was constructed like a pipe with a narrowed
internal passage containing it's propellor, would it produce a wake,
especially with a hubless fan drive?

When you push against the water with a paddle, what is (are) the
forces contributing to the thrust reaction developed? An amount of
energy equivalent to the mass*velocity/ friction and delta vee of
the vessel must be left behind in the water. It's mechanism of
transformation must simply be rationalized.

See, at the front of the sp sub, there must be a declivity in the
water as large as the hill of water that would be left behind, and
turbulent water left behind in the wake, whether organized into
visible waves, as in a "normal" wake, or not, must non the less be
transformable into friction heating of the water. It is a question
of looking at the turbulence through the right filters, like
catching a boomer by it's straight lines on the surface / filter
amidst the chop. This is an example of energy being expressed purely
as information analysis, or a set of data passed through an
analytical filter, heating it. Time is the governing constant [?]
and computational capacity limits the keys. The sump pump in the
pare bit buffer must be cooled, or its conductors overheat.

The wake formation of the sp sub would seem to double it's "hull
speed" by removing the bulge in the middle of the vessel as it
pushes through the water, or in the case of the sp sub, as it sucks
itself along. Could that principle be applied to a surface piercing
vessel on plane, like a sea-doo?

Fuel for sailboats is free as the wind. Petroleum is fuel for
engine boats.

Whatever happened to the lye and aluminum refillable battery? could
it be said to be in a sense hypergolic, and using water as a catalyst?

Terry K

Rod and reel?

Jere Lull answers this question quite well from a cruising sailor's
viewpoint. My experience in offshore cruising sailboats 37 to 42 feet
in length yields fuel consumption of about 0.4 gallons per hour at
cruise. This comes from consistent engine use when our speed under
sail drops below 3.5 or 4 knots - firing up the engine is always the
call of the man on watch - our goal is to make good about 135 NM or
more each 24 hour period underway. I have a hard and fast rule to not
leave on a voyage unless we have 200 hours of fuel onboard, or, as is
the case with the boats I normally take offshore, about 80 gallons of
fuel. This pencils out to about 900 to 1000 NM under power, with some
leeway for daily battery and frig plate charges while under sail
alone. This fuel quantity has worked quite well while on voyages of
30 days nominal length, yet we've come in on fumes once or twice,
having to wait for wind during the last week out to make it into port
with enough fuel remaining to negotiate the harbor and docks.

T A Will

0.4 gallons of diesel fuel used per hours equals of about 6.4 hp. but who's
counting.

(TAWill s/v Lucky Strike)
Date: 9/7/2004 11:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

Jere Lull answers this question quite well from a cruising sailor's
viewpoint. My experience in offshore cruising sailboats 37 to 42 feet
in length yields fuel consumption of about 0.4 gallons per hour at
cruise. This comes from consistent engine use when our speed under
sail drops below 3.5 or 4 knots - firing up the engine is always the
call of the man on watch - our goal is to make good about 135 NM or
more each 24 hour period underway. I have a hard and fast rule to not
leave on a voyage unless we have 200 hours of fuel onboard, or, as is
the case with the boats I normally take offshore, about 80 gallons of
fuel. This pencils out to about 900 to 1000 NM under power, with some
leeway for daily battery and frig plate charges while under sail
alone. This fuel quantity has worked quite well while on voyages of
30 days nominal length, yet we've come in on fumes once or twice,
having to wait for wind during the last week out to make it into port
with enough fuel remaining to negotiate the harbor and docks.

T A Will

Using the "rule of thumb" of 0.055 gallons/hp/hour, that works out to 7.2 HP.

To maintain 5 knots, a 40 footer is going at a SL ratio of 0.83, which means
about 2200 pounds per HP. If the boat displaces 18,000 pounds, that's a little
over 8 hp.

However, if the boat is motorsailing, the fuel consumption will go down
considerably.

To double check, a Yanmar 4JH4, nominally rated at 54 HP, will deliver 8 HP at
1750 RPM. using 0.5 gal/hour. The smaller 3YM30 would run at 2300 rpm and be
more efficient, using .45 gal/hour.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
0.4 gallons of diesel fuel used per hours equals of about 6.4 hp. but who's
counting.

(TAWill s/v Lucky Strike)
Date: 9/7/2004 11:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

Jere Lull answers this question quite well from a cruising sailor's
viewpoint. My experience in offshore cruising sailboats 37 to 42 feet
in length yields fuel consumption of about 0.4 gallons per hour at
cruise. This comes from consistent engine use when our speed under
sail drops below 3.5 or 4 knots - firing up the engine is always the
call of the man on watch - our goal is to make good about 135 NM or
more each 24 hour period underway. I have a hard and fast rule to not
leave on a voyage unless we have 200 hours of fuel onboard, or, as is
the case with the boats I normally take offshore, about 80 gallons of
fuel. This pencils out to about 900 to 1000 NM under power, with some
leeway for daily battery and frig plate charges while under sail
alone. This fuel quantity has worked quite well while on voyages of
30 days nominal length, yet we've come in on fumes once or twice,
having to wait for wind during the last week out to make it into port
with enough fuel remaining to negotiate the harbor and docks.

T A Will

use any "rule of thumb" you can find, BUT theoretical hp per gallon fuel burned
per hour is about:

water cooled 4 cycle diesel, 24 hp
water cooled 4 cycle gas, 20 hp
aircooled 4 cycle, or water cooled 2 cycle gas, 16 hp
aircooled 2 cycle gas, 12 hp

that's the theory, the practise is about 2/3rd that.

close enough for gummit werk. all assuming engines in decent working
condition, worn-out junkers not included.



Using the "rule of thumb" of 0.055 gallons/hp/hour, that works out to 7.2 HP.

To maintain 5 knots, a 40 footer is going at a SL ratio of 0.83, which means
about 2200 pounds per HP. If the boat displaces 18,000 pounds, that's a
little
over 8 hp.

However, if the boat is motorsailing, the fuel consumption will go down
considerably.

To double check, a Yanmar 4JH4, nominally rated at 54 HP, will deliver 8 HP
at
1750 RPM. using 0.5 gal/hour. The smaller 3YM30 would run at 2300 rpm and
be
more efficient, using .45 gal/hour.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
0.4 gallons of diesel fuel used per hours equals of about 6.4 hp. but
who's
counting.

(TAWill s/v Lucky Strike)
Date: 9/7/2004 11:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

Jere Lull answers this question quite well from a cruising sailor's
viewpoint. My experience in offshore cruising sailboats 37 to 42 feet
in length yields fuel consumption of about 0.4 gallons per hour at
cruise. This comes from consistent engine use when our speed under
sail drops below 3.5 or 4 knots - firing up the engine is always the
call of the man on watch - our goal is to make good about 135 NM or
more each 24 hour period underway. I have a hard and fast rule to not
leave on a voyage unless we have 200 hours of fuel onboard, or, as is
the case with the boats I normally take offshore, about 80 gallons of
fuel. This pencils out to about 900 to 1000 NM under power, with some
leeway for daily battery and frig plate charges while under sail
alone. This fuel quantity has worked quite well while on voyages of
30 days nominal length, yet we've come in on fumes once or twice,
having to wait for wind during the last week out to make it into port
with enough fuel remaining to negotiate the harbor and docks.

T A Will

(TAWill s/v Lucky Strike)
Date: 9/7/2004 11:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

Jere Lull answers this question quite well from a cruising sailor's
viewpoint. My experience in offshore cruising sailboats 37 to 42 feet
in length yields fuel consumption of about 0.4 gallons per hour at
cruise.
T A Will

In article ,
(JAXAshby) wrote:

0.4 gallons of diesel fuel used per hours equals of about 6.4 hp. but who's
counting.


Your point being what?

We cruise comfortably at 5-7 hp. We can go a full knot and a half (about
20%) faster when we want to, but at 4 times the burn. Not worth it to us
most of the time.

Cruising is very different than storming around at full power for an
afternoon.

Hell, we don't fire up until our VMG is under about 2 knots unless we
feel like it.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

a 42 boat motoring using just 6 hp is rare indeed. **planning** on using no
more than 6 hp so one has enough fuel is not prudent seamanship. essentially,
one is engineless in a 42 foot boat with a 6 hp engine. Hell, a 32 foot boat
with 6 hp is damned near engineless.

Now, engineless isn't bad, as long as *you* understand you are engineless.

Jere Lull answers this question quite well from a cruising sailor's
viewpoint. My experience in offshore cruising sailboats 37 to 42 feet
in length yields fuel consumption of about 0.4 gallons per hour at
cruise.
T A Will

In article ,
(JAXAshby) wrote:

0.4 gallons of diesel fuel used per hours equals of about 6.4 hp. but
who's
counting.


Your point being what?

We cruise comfortably at 5-7 hp. We can go a full knot and a half (about
20%) faster when we want to, but at 4 times the burn. Not worth it to us
most of the time.

Cruising is very different than storming around at full power for an
afternoon.

Hell, we don't fire up until our VMG is under about 2 knots unless we
feel like it.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

It's been a couple of years since I've bothered with you. Even though
you persist in posting foolish drivel, it's laughable to think of you
advising anyone about 'prudent seamanship'. What a NYC churl art
thou. Real life experiences are difficult for you to appreciate since
you obviously have no life with which to make comparison. Rick
wouldn't have you as a wiper, nor would I have you so much as secure
one of my dock lines without checking your work. Now, why don't you
go play in the street?

T A Will

(JAXAshby) wrote in message ...
a 42 boat motoring using just 6 hp is rare indeed. **planning** on using no
more than 6 hp so one has enough fuel is not prudent seamanship. essentially,
one is engineless in a 42 foot boat with a 6 hp engine. Hell, a 32 foot boat
with 6 hp is damned near engineless.

Now, engineless isn't bad, as long as *you* understand you are engineless.

dood, you are drunken idiot exposing yourself to little boys. go away.

(TAWill s/v Lucky Strike)
Date: 9/9/2004 11:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

It's been a couple of years since I've bothered with you. Even though
you persist in posting foolish drivel, it's laughable to think of you
advising anyone about 'prudent seamanship'. What a NYC churl art
thou. Real life experiences are difficult for you to appreciate since
you obviously have no life with which to make comparison. Rick
wouldn't have you as a wiper, nor would I have you so much as secure
one of my dock lines without checking your work. Now, why don't you
go play in the street?

T A Will

(JAXAshby) wrote in message
...
a 42 boat motoring using just 6 hp is rare indeed. **planning** on using no
more than 6 hp so one has enough fuel is not prudent seamanship.
essentially,
one is engineless in a 42 foot boat with a 6 hp engine. Hell, a 32 foot
boat
with 6 hp is damned near engineless.

Now, engineless isn't bad, as long as *you* understand you are engineless.

How prompt and efficient you are, however, in confirming your churlish nature.

T A Will


(TAWill s/v Lucky Strike)
Date: 9/9/2004 11:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

What a NYC churl art thou.

(JAXAshby) wrote in message ...
dood, you are drunken idiot exposing yourself to little boys. go away.

dood, too bad your mother was afraid to have the abortion.

(TAWill s/v Lucky Strike)
Date: 9/10/2004 11:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

How prompt and efficient you are, however, in confirming your churlish
nature.

T A Will


(TAWill s/v Lucky Strike)
Date: 9/9/2004 11:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

What a NYC churl art thou.

(JAXAshby) wrote in message
...
dood, you are drunken idiot exposing yourself to little boys. go away.

On 10 Sep 2004 04:14:24 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

dood, you are drunken idiot exposing yourself to little boys. go away.

Don't you ever tire of relating "The Life of JAX"? I mean, those
Speedos...talk about exposure.

We have achieved faith-based science,
faith-based economics, faith-based law
enforcement, and faith-based missile
defense.
What's next? Faith-based air traffic control?

With 85% of the Air Traffic Controllers being able to retire by 2006 and
very few being trained you might just have to have a lot of 'Faith' to fly
soon.

Hired right after the strike, retired the first day I was able. 21 years, 1
month, 10 days of experience out the door. My old area 1 year ago had 7
crews with 7 controllers on each, today they have 7 crews now the 5 or less
controllers on each. And it is not over yet, three more retire before the
end of the year I am told. That is a 46% reduction in workforce over 18
months.

as a pilot long ago, I never thought diddly squat of ATC people.

As a member of EAA, never met another pilot who felt any better of ATC people.

I was on the grounds of the EAA International Convention when President Regan
announced the firing of all ATC controlers. 100,000 pilots at the convention
cheered.

being an ATC controller takes no skill and damned little training. 18 year old
boys in the military just 10 months out of high school study hall do the job.

With 85% of the Air Traffic Controllers being able to retire by 2006 and
very few being trained you might just have to have a lot of 'Faith' to fly
soon.

Hired right after the strike, retired the first day I was able. 21 years, 1
month, 10 days of experience out the door. My old area 1 year ago had 7
crews with 7 controllers on each, today they have 7 crews now the 5 or less
controllers on each. And it is not over yet, three more retire before the
end of the year I am told. That is a 46% reduction in workforce over 18
months.

In article , JAXAshby wrote:
remember, the term entered this thread when some fraud claiming to be
a college professor totally misused the word.

Please do not call me a fraud. If you have any doubts about my identity,
just send an email to and ask for
confirmation.

I am quite astonished how a little comment by me created such a huge
subthread. Please pardon me for having distracted you from the original
topic of this thread with an obvious but not very helpful observation.
The speed is asymptotic simply because it cannot reach infinity and the
function that gives the speed in dependence of the power is assumed to
be monotonously increasing. We all know about c, the speed of light,
do we? I have never said that the hull speed would be that upper limit.

I made my point because the observation ``more power = more speed''
by Terry Spragg does not tell much as long as we do not know whether it
is asymptotic and, if yes, where the limit is. Or in other words: The
statement ``more power = more speed'' does not contradict the popular
(but incorrect) belief that the hull speed could be that limit.

Andreas.

--
Dr. Andreas F. Borchert, SAI, Universitaet Ulm | Habe Mut, dich deines
Helmholtzstrasse 18, E02, Tel +49 731 50-23572 | eigenen Verstandes zu
http://www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/sai/borchert/ | bedienen! -- I. Kant

Subject: fuel use for sailboats
From: (Andreas Borchert)
Date: 09/20/2004 11:48 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , JAXAshby wrote:
remember, the term entered this thread when some fraud claiming to be
a college professor totally misused the word.

Please do not call me a fraud. If you have any doubts about my identity,
just send an email to and ask for
c

Jax (here after referred to as Doodles) calls everyone a fraud .... to begin
with.
One learns quickly when dealing with Doodles, to take most of what he says as
the ramblings of a "Wannabe" who still hasn't decided what exactly he
"Wannabe".
For instance .... he still thinks that planes and boats react the same and that
the FAA is the only authority on navigation and all things "boating".
Doodles is the guy you'll see coming into an anchorage with his wireless
computer on his lap doing a "google" search for the Physics of tidal
computations versus proper catenary for various chain sizes, versus boat
displacement under given wind conditions using three strand or plaid line of
nylon or dacron poly of so many feet versus so many feet of chain with a
Fortress, Danforth, Navy standard, etc. anchor...... who ends up beaching,
cause he forgot to steer by compass (and we all know what Doodles thinks of
compasses) and couldn't trust his 4 GPS and two DGPS.

Shen

Shen44 wrote:
Jax (here after referred to as Doodles) calls everyone a fraud .... to begin
with.

Yeah, calling other people names seems to be all he's good for.

Doodles is the guy you'll see coming into an anchorage with his wireless
computer on his lap doing a "google" search for the Physics of tidal
computations

Nah, he's the kind that never goes anywhere because he's too busy
sneering other peoples boats & skills. As far as can be determined,
Jaxxie went sailing once on somebody elses boat, on a calm afternoon,
and didn't like it much.

DSK

andreas, you are indeed a fraud, as you so convincingly show below.

The speed is asymptotic simply because it cannot reach infinity and the
function that gives the speed in dependence of the power is assumed to
be monotonously increasing. We all know about c, the speed of light,
do we? I have never said that the hull speed would be that upper limit.

I made my point because the observation ``more power = more speed''
by Terry Spragg does not tell much as long as we do not know whether it
is asymptotic and, if yes, where the limit is. Or in other words: The
statement ``more power = more speed'' does not contradict the popular
(but incorrect) belief that the hull speed could be that limit.

Andreas.

--
Dr. Andreas F. Borchert, SAI, Universitaet Ulm | Habe Mut, dich deines
Helmholtzstrasse 18, E02, Tel +49 731 50-23572 | eigenen Verstandes zu
http://www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/sai/borchert/ | bedienen! -- I. Kant

"DSK" wrote in message
...
|
| Nah, he's the kind that never goes anywhere because he's too busy
| sneering other peoples boats & skills. As far as can be determined,
| Jaxxie went sailing once on somebody elses boat, on a calm afternoon,
| and didn't like it much.

Nah, he's a liveaboard on an old Westsail 32 that leaks and the only
bluewater he has seen is either sailing magazines or movies!

Nah, he's a liveaboard on an old Westsail 32 that leaks and the only
bluewater he has seen is either sailing magazines or movies!

I have been on just two Westsails in my life, and each time was at the request
of a friend who was thinking of buying one. I really am not all that
interested in them, but if I were I think the Kendall-Westsail is a much better
looking boat.

I first saw bluewater as a young professional killer on my way to Viet Nam. I
was last on bluewater five weeks ago.

Jax who asked about your porta-pottie

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
Nah, he's a liveaboard on an old Westsail 32 that leaks and the only
bluewater he has seen is either sailing magazines or movies!

I have been on just two Westsails in my life, and each time was at the
request
of a friend who was thinking of buying one. I really am not all that
interested in them, but if I were I think the Kendall-Westsail is a much
better
looking boat.

I first saw bluewater as a young professional killer on my way to Viet
Nam. I
was last on bluewater five weeks ago.