jim, if you choose to redefine every English word to suit your fancy, there is
no debate possible. green is carrots, rum is gravel, curved prop blades are
straight. makes no room for discussion.

you bought one and are trying to convince yourself it was a wise "investment".
Just like gold will reach $2,000 an ounce six weeks after the election.

you are a true-believer, jim, and you pushed the English language around to
form it to your convictions.

who could debate that?

From: Jim Richardson
Date: 9/2/2004 4:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 01 Sep 2004 11:41:09 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
jimmy, look at the blades. if you can't see what they look like and what
they
do, look at a prop that feathers and you **should** see the difference. if
still not, ask a dockboy to explain it to you.



I had hoped you would have a point, and debate it, rather than simply
sliding into insults.

I guess I was hoping for too much.


From: Jim Richardson
Date: 9/1/2004 5:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 01 Sep 2004 02:03:35 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
the blades are curved, and rather dramatically so.


So what? feathering a prop doesn't require that there be *no* drag, it's
a way to reduce drag, not eliminate it.

The autoprop blades rotate to parallel to the axis of the shaft, how is
that not feathering?



The blades rotate until they are inline with the shaft axis, how is
this
not feathering?

take a look at the blades. they rotate and thus *reduce* drag, but
they
certainly don't "feather".




I have, the blades rotate to line up with the axis of the shaft, how is
that *not* feathering?

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed... Oh wait, he
does










--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Never be in the company of anyone with whom you would not want to die.
-- Fremen Saying










--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly.
It just happens to be very selective about who its friends are.
-- Kyle Hearn

On 02 Sep 2004 12:14:22 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
jim, if you choose to redefine every English word to suit your fancy, there is
no debate possible. green is carrots, rum is gravel, curved prop blades are
straight. makes no room for discussion.


The definition you yourself provided for feathering, fits the autoprop.
The blades rotate to inline with the fluid flow. How is that not
feathering?


you bought one and are trying to convince yourself it was a wise "investment".
Just like gold will reach $2,000 an ounce six weeks after the election.

you are a true-believer, jim, and you pushed the English language around to
form it to your convictions.

who could debate that?


Well, given that your assumption that I bought one, is in error, the
rest of your "logic" proceding from that error, is equally flawed.

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux: There is no conspiracy... yet
-- Matthew Adair

no, the chord does. which word don't you understand?

From: Jim Richardson
Date: 9/2/2004 1:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 02 Sep 2004 12:14:22 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
jim, if you choose to redefine every English word to suit your fancy, there
is
no debate possible. green is carrots, rum is gravel, curved prop blades
are
straight. makes no room for discussion.


The definition you yourself provided for feathering, fits the autoprop.
The blades rotate to inline with the fluid flow. How is that not
feathering?


you bought one and are trying to convince yourself it was a wise
"investment".
Just like gold will reach $2,000 an ounce six weeks after the election.

you are a true-believer, jim, and you pushed the English language around to
form it to your convictions.

who could debate that?


Well, given that your assumption that I bought one, is in error, the
rest of your "logic" proceding from that error, is equally flawed.

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux: There is no conspiracy... yet
-- Matthew Adair

On 03 Sep 2004 04:01:46 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
no, the chord does. which word don't you understand?


The "chord does" What JAXAshby ?





--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Human beings can always be counted on to assert with vigor
their God-given right to be stupid."
-- Dean Koontz

jim, redefine any and all words you can to "prove" (to yourself and any
doubters out there) that your spending $2,200 for a prop to make your boat go
1/10th knot faster was one hell of a smart "investment".

the word "feathering" can not be used in the context of a corkscrew prop such
as an auto-prop. except by "investers" mentioned above.

an auto-prop is an auto-prop. the blades twist a little under high power/low
speed, twist a little differently under low power/low speed, and twist
something differently under no power/any speed. the drag on the prop is still
very high indeed (as a percentage) compared to a genuine feathering prop.
auto-props are sold (by the manufacturer at least, if not always by the dealer)
as a variable speed transmission.

keep in mind that props don't drag all that much anyway. according to the MIT
data, even a fixed 3 blade only pulled 170# on a boat at 5 knots, or about the
equivelent of 2-1/2 hp.

From: Jim Richardson
Date: 9/3/2004 4:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 03 Sep 2004 04:01:46 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
no, the chord does. which word don't you understand?


The "chord does" What JAXAshby ?





--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Human beings can always be counted on to assert with vigor
their God-given right to be stupid."
-- Dean Koontz

On 03 Sep 2004 11:57:24 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
jim, redefine any and all words you can to "prove" (to yourself and
any doubters out there) that your spending $2,200 for a prop to make
your boat go 1/10th knot faster was one hell of a smart "investment".


Why do you insist on claiming I bought an autoprop?

the word "feathering" can not be used in the context of a corkscrew
prop such as an auto-prop. except by "investers" mentioned above.


Then why did you post a definition of feathering, which fit the
autoprop?

an auto-prop is an auto-prop. the blades twist a little under high
power/low speed, twist a little differently under low power/low speed,
and twist something differently under no power/any speed. the drag on
the prop is still very high indeed (as a percentage) compared to a
genuine feathering prop. auto-props are sold (by the manufacturer at
least, if not always by the dealer) as a variable speed transmission.



Fact remains, the blades on the autoprop swivel to be inline with the
shaft, and present less drag than in the forward or reverse direction,
how is that not feathering?

keep in mind that props don't drag all that much anyway. according to
the MIT data, even a fixed 3 blade only pulled 170# on a boat at 5
knots, or about the equivelent of 2-1/2 hp.


Not relevent to the issue. It may mean that the autoprop wouldn't be
worth the cost, don't know, haven't bought one, don't plan to. Although
we will be replacing WindWalker's prop this next year, it's likely going
to be a fixed prop, simply because of cost. Some possibility of a
maxprop, but that's only if we think the cost is affordable.


--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Does Emacs have the Buddha nature? Why not? It has bloody well
everything else

Why do you insist on claiming I bought an autoprop?

because no one but someone who threw $2,200 on the table for such a tiny
improvement in forward speed would write the junk you write. an auto-prop is a
variable speed transmission, not a feathering prop.

Then why did you post a definition of feathering, which fit the
autoprop?

it does not fit. not even close. and if you had not blown $2,200 on a prop
hoping against hope you could make your boat *sail* faster you would know the
difference.

Did the dealer tell you you could pass Island Packets and Westsail 32 if you
bought an auto-prop?

Fact remains, the blades on the autoprop swivel to be inline

a corkscrew surface can not be "inline" with anything except another corkscrew
surface

with the
shaft, and present less drag than in the forward or reverse direction,
how is that not feathering?

keep in mind that props don't drag all that much anyway. according to
the MIT data, even a fixed 3 blade only pulled 170# on a boat at 5
knots, or about the equivelent of 2-1/2 hp.


Not relevent to the issue. It may mean that the autoprop wouldn't be
worth the cost, don't know, haven't bought one, don't plan to. Although
we will be replacing WindWalker's prop this next year, it's likely going
to be a fixed prop, simply because of cost. Some possibility of a
maxprop, but that's only if we think the cost is affordable.

but, it very much was the question asked in the beginning of this tread.

an auto-prop is NOT a folding prop -- which gives the least drag as compared
to a fixed prop -- and is NOT a feathering prop in any sense in which the word
feathering is used.

an auto-prop is a variable speed transmission.

in addition, in the context of the title of this thread, NO a folding prop is
not much use except to racers. The drag of a fixed three blade prop ain't all
that much, the drag of a fixed two blade prop is much less than a three, and a
fixed two blade aligned behind the keel has even less drag.

the difference in drag between a fixed two blade prop aligned behind the keel
and a folding prop is like picking up nickles on the street.


--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Does Emacs have the Buddha nature? Why not? It has bloody well
everything else