On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 20:12:27 -0400, Jeff
wrote:

Michael wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:03:52 -0400, Jeff
wrote:


A handy gadget to have, but not a necessity. It is useful if you find
yourself anchoring in limited scope situations. However, I wouldn't
feel happy relying on one in high winds since its advantage goes away
when the rode is stretched tight.


"A main, or “Working Anchor” should hold up to 30 knots of wind. A
“Storm Anchor” is for winds up to 42 knots. Remember that as the wind
speed doubles, the holding requirement quadruples!"

Do you have a point?

The above was quoted from the URL that was provided as a reference.

I think, and believe that it is common that - winds in excess of 40
knots you would be using more than one anchor and the URL:

http://www.fortressanchors.com/2nd_anchor.html

Illustrates 6 different anchoring situations, with 3 refering to storm
conditions.

I know more than one experienced crusier that do infact have a storm
anchor...the old Hershoff style fishermans anchor that was about 70
lbs which they called their "storm achor" generally these can be taken
apart and stored below.

Also many experienced crusiers go for one or two levels oversize from
that which is recomended for their boat as an anchor. And have an
min. or 2 and some asy many as 4 anchors.

An important factor in anchors is their ability to reset, it is
believed that "fluke"style anchors are NOT as good or capable as a
Bruce or CRQ style anchors, in ther resetting ability. Althought the
fortress exceeds them in holding power, with these style anchor the
bahamian style mooring makes sense....and why fortress includes a
discussion on secondary anchors.

GPS's and some depth sounds have anchor alarms.

This is the reason why the minimum anchor should not be used; if you
plan to anchor overnight (i.e. unattended) you should always go up at
least one size. My primary should hold up to 50 or so knots, but I
would generally have a second anchor set if I expected that.

My point is that what you call a "working anchor" does not become a
storm anchor simply by adding a kellet.

I didnt suggest that...but that "as the wind
speed doubles, the holding requirement quadruples!"
as quoated from fortress anchors

The kelt does 2 things effectively:
1
It acts as a snubber
2
Keeps the chain on the bottom (when not in sorm conditions) and
exponentially increases the holding power (vertical pull out) of the
anchor.

I havent used this tech. myself but the cantanery principle does make
alot of sense to me. Is a kelt necessary? Since I dont know of many
that use one, probably not as they use other means of snubbing the
anchor line, if at all. If I had the experience of using one, then I
would decide if it was necessary. Thats why the original post sought
others thoughts, either in principle or from usage experience.
Still, i like the idea and it is something that you could probably
make yourself....I like those kind of ideas....

FairWinds....

Michael wrote:
"A main, or “Working Anchor” should hold up to 30 knots of wind. A
“Storm Anchor” is for winds up to 42 knots. Remember that as the wind
speed doubles, the holding requirement quadruples!"

Do you have a point?


The above was quoted from the URL that was provided as a reference.

OK, no point but you just want to review everything you've read about
anchoring. That's OK, this all gets covered here every 2 or 3 weeks,
it seems.

....


I know more than one experienced crusier that do infact have a storm
anchor...the old Hershoff style fishermans anchor that was about 70
lbs which they called their "storm achor" generally these can be taken
apart and stored below.

Large Fortresses are gaining favor in this regard - more bang for the
buck (or pound). However, in a major storm the wind will shift, so
you need more than one anchor that can handle a serious load. A
friend is fond is fond of pointing to a small Danforth he keeps on the
stern and saying, "That's the anchor that held us in the 'Storm of the
Century.' "

He now carrys a large Fortress in the bilge, but for that storm he had
an array of three anchors set - the largest a 35 pound plow. All had
large scope - I think the Danforth was set in a mud bank so at low
tide it actually had negative scope!


....

My point is that what you call a "working anchor" does not become a
storm anchor simply by adding a kellet.


I didnt suggest that...but that "as the wind
speed doubles, the holding requirement quadruples!"
as quoated from fortress anchors

The kelt does 2 things effectively:
1
It acts as a snubber

In light air it has similar effect. In heavy air, however, its
"snubbing power" evaporates. This is not a problem if rope is
included in the rode, but an all chain rode needs a proper snubber.

Of course, I'm not saying not to use the kellet in heavy air, only
that it shouldn't be relied on. In this case it acts as though you
had slightly more (or larger) chain.



2
Keeps the chain on the bottom (when not in sorm conditions) and
exponentially increases the holding power (vertical pull out) of the
anchor.

"Exponentially"??? I think not. In fact, it adds little if proper
scope is used. Its utility is also diminished if you use a
significant amount of chain on the rode. In other words, it can be
very useful if you use 6 feet of chain and 3:1 scope. If you have 50
feet of chain an always use at least 5:1 scope, the utility is diminished.



I havent used this tech. myself but the cantanery principle does make
alot of sense to me.

The "catenary principle" is often used when discussing anchors. It is
nonsense, only used by those who think a mathematical sounding word is
needed to explain what's going on. A catenary is the shape assumed by
a chain suspended by its two ends. A suspension bridge is the classic
example; a chain anchor rode is another. However, the reserve holding
power of a chain is in the part that is still lying on the ground, not
the part that is lifted up and is in the catenary shape. The reason
is this: if a rode is assuming the catenary shape, the difference
between that and fully extended (i.e. "rod-straight") is small, maybe
a foot or so. The "reserve" is in the distance the boat can move when
hit by a wave, not the force it takes to straighten out to chain.
Thus, when someone draws the picture with the nice curve, and says
"look at this catenary, that's what gives the smooth ride and holding
power," it means they don't really understand what's going on.

The kellet works because it forces the rode out of the catenary shape.
The rode can be viewed as two parts separated by the kellet: The
part nearest the anchor sees a shallow approach so it acts as if the
scope were larger. The part near the boat acts as if the rode had a
larger chain at the anchor end, which needs a larger force to lift it
off the bottom. However, both of these affects diminish in stronger
wind, as the kellet is raised and the rode straightens.


Is a kelt necessary? Since I dont know of many
that use one, probably not as they use other means of snubbing the
anchor line, if at all. If I had the experience of using one, then I
would decide if it was necessary. Thats why the original post sought
others thoughts, either in principle or from usage experience.
Still, i like the idea and it is something that you could probably
make yourself....I like those kind of ideas....

As I said at first, handy but not necessary. They are most useful if
you use minimal chain and scope. They can also be handy in reducing
the tendency to swing. I used one often on my first boat, which was
too small to carry all the ground tackle I wanted, and didn't have a
windlass. I used one a few times to reduce horsing on my second boat,
but also found I could just drop a weight to the bottom on very short
short scope to accomplish the same thing - this is sometimes called a
hammerlock anchor. Now I rely on a good anchor, 50 feet of chain,
and a windlass, and use a second anchor for security.

BTW, the friends I mentioned earlier have lived mostly at anchor for
the last 25 years. They frequently deploy a kellet. They've tried a
number of shapes, I think they now they use a set of diving weights
strapped around the rode. I'll ask them about it the next time they
pass through. (They're wintering now in Newfoundland!)

FairWinds....
... and a Following Sea

Michael wrote:
I havent used this tech. myself but the cantanery principle does make
alot of sense to me. Is a kelt necessary? Since I dont know of many
that use one, probably not as they use other means of snubbing the
anchor line, if at all. If I had the experience of using one, then I
would decide if it was necessary. Thats why the original post sought
others thoughts, either in principle or from usage experience.
Still, i like the idea and it is something that you could probably
make yourself....I like those kind of ideas....

As it turns out my cruising friends just sent an email asking me to
pass on their web site to interested friends:
http://liveaboard.sv-moonshadow.com/mnshdw.htm

Ed has written a page about kellets, which he calls a sentinel:
http://liveaboard.sv-moonshadow.com/Sentinel.htm

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:23:09 -0400, Jeff wrote:

As it turns out my cruising friends just sent an email asking me to
pass on their web site to interested friends:
http://liveaboard.sv-moonshadow.com/mnshdw.htm

Ed has written a page about kellets, which he calls a sentinel:
http://liveaboard.sv-moonshadow.com/Sentinel.htm

"When the current or wind forces gain the upper hand the rode will be
pulled taut and the sentinel will be "out of the system" until it is
needed again.

"I wouldn't sail without it!"

It seems that Ed's opinion is that its a necessity for him.

Also it seems important enough for him to include it as an article on
his web presence.


Summer of 1977 - segment

Interesting story, reminds me of begining of my first cruise in
Bahamas.

ICW Anchoring

Extracted from "Littoral Drift" by E. Seling 1994

One of the most often and frequent discussion or cruisers is about
anchoring.LOL....

"Of course one of the beauties of sailing is that one is always
learning"

"Going up one anchor size is usually a good idea for a 'storm' anchor,
a 'working anchor' need not be so heavy."

"The best strategy is to choose a spot where the wind will blow at
right angles to the tidal current."

EXCELLENT POINT^^^^^^

"One final word about selecting anchorages. The best place is not
necessarily where other boats are. Frequently an unsuitable anchorage
is crowded while another better one nearby goes unused. Everyone
assumed the 'other guy' knew what he was doing."

I really like this, how true it is...lol

He proceeds to give excellent advice on setting the Danforth
anchor....

Ed also make excellent images....the rendered image are professional
well done

Thanks for the link, it was worth it.
Since posting the link to Bumfuzzel one response was as thanks for
make another usenetter aware of it...That is the real purpose of
usenet and not all the sillyness that some try to promote. Thanks for
the link.

Fair winds

Michael wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:23:09 -0400, Jeff wrote:

As it turns out my cruising friends just sent an email asking me to
pass on their web site to interested friends:
http://liveaboard.sv-moonshadow.com/mnshdw.htm

Ed has written a page about kellets, which he calls a sentinel:
http://liveaboard.sv-moonshadow.com/Sentinel.htm


"When the current or wind forces gain the upper hand the rode will be
pulled taut and the sentinel will be "out of the system" until it is
needed again.

"I wouldn't sail without it!"

It seems that Ed's opinion is that its a necessity for him.


Yes, but there are two points he First, Ed and Carolyn have lived
aboard for 25 years, most of that at anchor. Anyone who spends 300
nights a year on the hook needs a full arsenal of tricks in their kit.

Second, you asked about the "Anchor Buddy," which costs about $200.
Ed's version is a few old diving weights. When I need one, I use a
dinghy anchor or a length of chain tied up and run down the rode on a
large shackle. The "Buddy" is not a necessity, but you should carry
enough parts in your spare gear bag to fashion a kellet when needed.


Also it seems important enough for him to include it as an article on
his web presence.


Ed writes about a few odd things ;-)


Summer of 1977 - segment

Interesting story, reminds me of begining of my first cruise in
Bahamas.

This was a traumatic and formative episode for them. Ed's thoughts
about the Sentinel were triggered by having the rode eaten away by the
tip of the keel. BTW, this happened in 1979, not '77 - I have to
remind Ed he's not quite as old as he thinks! I remember it well,
since I rode out the same storm on my boat, although I only had 40
knots, not the 60+ knots that they had further East. A few days later
they called and asked me to fly up and help them bring the boat back.

....


He proceeds to give excellent advice on setting the Danforth
anchor....

Many of Ed's lessons have stayed with me over the years, but two stand
out: First, if an anchor doesn't set right away, it isn't worth
dragging it all over the anchorage. Haul, and retry. If it doesn't
set on the second try, something is wrong, and it isn't worth trying
the same anchor in the same location a third time.

The other point is that a Danforth doesn't need a lot of chain,
especially in mud. Having little or no chain allows you to "fish" for
the bottom and feel it as it digs in. Ed sometimes uses no chain, but
when he and I tried that with my new Fortress, we had trouble getting
it to go to the bottom in a current! I use about 8 feet of chain on
my Fortress now. However, my primary anchor, a 35# Delta, has 50 feet
of chain.




Ed also make excellent images....the rendered image are professional
well done

Rendering has become Ed's hobby - his images are startlingly realistic!