wrote:
So if I believe this, don't I have the knowledge of an experienced

person about it?

Yes you have the knowledge but without experience to evaluate it, that
is the issue that I have with inexperienced people passing along second
hand "knowledge" as "fact".

I have the experience to know that a kellet will not increase ultimate
holding power of an anchor, nor will it significantly decrease shock
loads under the conditions where it is important. I know from
experience that even a 3/8 chain rode will be pulled bar taut with
approximately 1200 lbs of pull on it. Once the rode is bar taut, a
kellet is worthless. A kellet is useful for reducing swing radius in
light to moderate conditions. Period.

In order for your experience to prove that, wouldn't you have had to use
all possible combinations of anchors, rodes and kellets? If you haven't
used all possible combinations, then you're not drawing the conclusion
about all kellets based upon experience, you are drawing the conclusion
the same way an inexperienced person draws conclusions: by evaluating
the facts and arguments involved.

For example, maybe you don't have the experience of actually using a
kellet with a danforth anchor, but you know that the danforth has almost
identical properties to an anchor you do know about, so you project your
conclusion to danforth anchors even though you don't have direct experience.

Using this same method, people without experience X can be as right and
knowledgeable as people with experience X. You see what I'm saying? I
don't disrespect your experience, surely experience helps people gain
vast amounts of knowledge, but it's not the only way to gain knowledge,
thank goodness, or none of us would know very much.

--
Stephen

-------

For any proposition there is always some sufficiently narrow
interpretation of its terms, such that it turns out true, and
some sufficiently wide interpretation such that it turns out
false...concept stretching will refute *any* statement, and will
leave no true statement whatsoever.
-- Imre Lakatos

Stephen, the type of anchor has no impact on the effectiveness of a
fully loaded rode with a kellet. Why? Think about how a kellet works.
A kellet artificially increases the catenary of a partially loaded
rode. That can be useful to decrease swing radius in light to moderate
conditions. It may also assist with setting an anchor on scope too
short for conditions.
All well and good until the wind starts to blow, the rode loads up and
pulls taut, and now the low angle achieved by the initial use of the
kellet returns to the higher angle associated with short scope. At
exactly the time you need maximum effectiveness from your anchor, the
rode is puled bar taut, returning your swing radius to its normal
dimension, and decreasing the effective holding power of your anchor.
A kellet can be useful in certain specific circumstances but to claim
universal effectiveness is foolhardy. When the wind starts to blow I
like to know that my anchor was properly set on the correct scope for
conditions, not set in a way that partially compensates for short
scope. Here's the proof: Have you ever heard of a large commercial
ship or a naval ship relying on a kellet to anchor? Of course not.
How would you like to be in front of a board of inquiry or Court
Martial proceeding explaining why you entrusted your ship to short
scope because you used a kellet on Mic's recommendation.

Glenn Ashmore wrote:
A few observations:

First I noticed a number of other patterns on the beach including a Spade
but no test results for them.
Second, beach sand reacts very different from ocean bottom. And most
important, the test were done with effectively infinite scope. Zero angle
between the rode and the beach. This works against fixed shank patterns
like the claw and the plow because it holds the shank down keeping it from
righting. Setting on a normal 4 or 5 to 1 scope the rode is angled upward
which lifts the shank and helps right the anchor. When set on a 4:1 scope
the claw type will set easier than almost any other pattern which accounts
for its popularity. It just doesn't have the holding power.

The Rocna does have good holding power and is relatively inexpensive but the
big hoop just compensates for poor balance.

Mic 67

Glenn, we did not include in our video the Spade, nor the Delta, SARCA,
Buegel, and a few others, mostly for reasons of time. That video is already
nearly 10 mins long, and we wanted to keep our message simple: old types bad,
new types good. The most popular types are plows and claws so that is what we
target.

Your comments about scope are just plain wrong. This is important. No anchor
is designed to work with a particular scope; on the contrary, all anchors
work better the more scope you have. The ideal is horizontal, hence the use
of chain or kellets to attain an angle lower than that of a straight line
between the anchor and the boat. We therefore use a horizontal angle in any
testing to provide a level playing field; otherwise those boaters more
experienced would object to a particular scope being used, as it may favor
(or hurt) a particular anchor.

The shank, articulated or not, has nothing to do with scope affecting how the
anchor sets. The Delta, Spade, and Rocna, all depend on what's called three-
point geometry for their setting; i.e. they lie on their sides initially then
screw into the substrate.

The "big hoop" does not compensate for "poor balance"; rather the roll-bar
ensures the anchor rights itself, without relying on a dedicated weight in
the tip, an inefficiency common amongst other designs.

Mic wrote:
A few observations:

Humm...but wouldnt that apply to the Rocna too?
It would seem to and was one of my first thoughts of this test.
that is probably why an anchor with a mini float attached to it tend
or seems to be effect in keeping it in a good or better setting
position.

Mini floats have the drawback of detracting from the anchor's overall weight
underwater, and also are difficult to construct with any decent amount of
durability.

I would think that the Bulwagga would be righted on the bottom every
time given it design.

The Bulwagga has three flukes mounted in an equilateral arrangement. This
means there is no right way up

The drawback is that only 2 of its 3 flukes are ever in use. Furthermore its
design is difficult to make strong enough (flukes are just flat plate - catch
one in rock or coral and see what happens). It is however an excellent,
superior alternative to Danforth-type anchors.


I do believe that any anchors performance can be enhanced with the use
of a kellet or Anchor Catenary.


waynebatrecdotboats is largely correct is his assertations that kellets are
of little ultimate use. They suffer from a catch-22 whereby they work well in
light conditions, but by the time conditions are bad enough that you care,
the rode will have been pulled nearly tight, and the kellet will make next to
no difference - and of course it is at this point that you would probably
like it to.

Do not rely on catenary from either chain or kellet to absorb shock. Use a
nylon snubber to do this.

Kellets are good at reducing your swing radius, and their functionality
really ends there. Put the weight of the kellet into the anchor instead, so
you have a larger anchor, and you will see a much better return on ultimate
holding power.

A good angle of pull on the anchor should be attained by the use of adequate
scope.

Those interested in the theory can study the math he
http://alain.fraysse.free.fr/sail/ro...ces/forces.htm
That site considers most factors involved and arrives at a sensible
conclusion with regard to "the best rode" that we can support on the basis of
experience.

Lee Haefele wrote:
Interesting footage, I noted that the Rochna test seemed to be wetter sand.
The CQR type plow was identical to my experience, 50% failed launchings.
This was cured by my changing to a Delta, a non jointed plow. My CQR
knockoff, now resides in the garden.
Lee Haefele
Nauticat 33 Alesto
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...61924924082592

[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]

Mic 67

The Rocna wasn't tested in wetter sand, although this is a problem with our
video, in that it looks like it. The problem is the plow and claw are shot
from the same point as the Rocna (the camera doesn't move). Furthermore both
the claw and plow drag up the beach fairly quickly, and at this point yes the
sand is dryer - but not where they started.

I know that sounds like excuses but what can you do. See this pic that shows
the beach waterline and the location of the Rocna tests against those of the
others: http://www.rocna.com/images/remote/t..._waterline.jpg

For those that are interested the proper video is on our website (
www.rocna.com and select "watch the video"). All versions are higher quality
than the Google one, and there is a double-resolution one also if you have a
broadband connection.

Do not rely on catenary from either chain or kellet to absorb shock. Use a
nylon snubber to do this.

Kellets are good at reducing your swing radius, and their functionality
really ends there. Put the weight of the kellet into the anchor instead, so
you have a larger anchor, and you will see a much better return on ultimate
holding power.

A good angle of pull on the anchor should be attained by the use of adequate
scope.

Well said, and as I pointed out, there's nothing like experience.

On Mon, 29 May 2006 12:19:23 GMT, "craigsmith" u22396@uwe wrote:

Mic wrote:
A few observations:

Humm...but wouldnt that apply to the Rocna too?
It would seem to and was one of my first thoughts of this test.
that is probably why an anchor with a mini float attached to it tend
or seems to be effect in keeping it in a good or better setting
position.

Mini floats have the drawback of detracting from the anchor's overall weight
underwater, and also are difficult to construct with any decent amount of
durability.

Yep, but the design of the mini float has a purpose which appears, and
as I recall, in keeping it in a good or better setting position.
Which from the Rocna test seemed to show as being a factor in the
setting of an anchor and thus my observations of the design of the
Bulwagga.

I would think that the Bulwagga would be righted on the bottom every
time given it design.

The Bulwagga has three flukes mounted in an equilateral arrangement. This
means there is no right way up

Which would mean that is a good thing?

The drawback is that only 2 of its 3 flukes are ever in use. Furthermore its
design is difficult to make strong enough (flukes are just flat plate - catch
one in rock or coral and see what happens). It is however an excellent,
superior alternative to Danforth-type anchors.

This would tend to support the statement that there is no one anchor
for all conditions. Nor is there any controlled anchor test that
could be considered "ultimate", only relative, that I know of as most
every anchoring situation is a unique combination of variables,
granted there are similarities. Now if for example the Rocna tests
proved that another anchor was better would Rocna make those results
know? The good thing about the Rocna tests is that they made the
effort and those that see it can decide for themselves.



I do believe that any anchors performance can be enhanced with the use
of a kellet or Anchor Catenary.


waynebatrecdotboats is largely correct is his assertations that kellets are
of little ultimate use. They suffer from a catch-22 whereby they work well in
light conditions, but by the time conditions are bad enough that you care,
the rode will have been pulled nearly tight, and the kellet will make next to
no difference - and of course it is at this point that you would probably
like it to.

If the conditions cause the anchor chain to become taut there is no
cantenary effect from a kellet or chain. So it is not of "ultimate"
use under those conditions. But who said it was?
Wayne was just trolling. The fact that by using a kellet in heavy
weather anchoring is that a chain is less likely to become taut than
without one except in extreme conditons and circumstances. In other
words a chain will go taut latter (if at all depending on the
conditons) with the use of a kellet or more chain than sooner without
based on experience and knowledge. At which point the concern would
not just be that of ultimate holding power but chafe, deck hardware
strenght, integrity of snubbers, etc.

A kellet ought not be a substitute for scope but under certain
conditions and reasons an anchors performance can be enhanced.

Gord May who you are aware of and is probably one of the most helpful
and respected persons in the internet sailing community:
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...read.php?t=276
"In heavy weather, I always deploy 15 Lb "Sentinal" (Kedge) weights,
suspended a few feet above bottom."
Gord May
GordATBoatpro.zznDOTcom ~ (Requires Decription)

Although he does not give his reasons why, and I am sure that he
doesnt believe that it will have an effect on a taut chain. But it is
likely that he believes that the use of a kellet in those conditions
is an aid to anchoring and to delay or totally avoid a taut chain that
would/might occur without it use.

http://www.anchorbuddy.co.nz/
"They...
Increase anchoring security and reduce the risk of the anchor
dragging by changing the angle of pull on the anchor to help it dig in
*
Reduce boat swing by up to 50%
*
Make life at anchor much more comfortable
Anchor weights, (also known as chums, kellets, sentinels, anchor
angels) have been used for generations to anchor boats more securely.
They almost double the holding power of the anchor and reduce the
working load of the anchor by up to 50%. They are an advanced
technique in safe, secure anchoring."

Do not rely on catenary from either chain or kellet to absorb shock. Use a
nylon snubber to do this.

Kellets are good at reducing your swing radius, and their functionality
really ends there. Put the weight of the kellet into the anchor instead, so
you have a larger anchor, and you will see a much better return on ultimate
holding power.

So the claim that Anchor Buddy makes "They almost double the holding
power of the anchor and reduce the working load of the anchor by up to
50%." is false? Ultimate holding power has to do as much with bottom
conditions, boat windage, anchor design, sea conditions and resetting
ability than just weight alone.

http://www.anchorbuddy.co.nz/faq.html
This faq reasonably addresses the issue of using a larger anchor and
the practical aspects of a kellet. Thats not to say that a bigger
anchor is not better, and how big is big enough isnt always a
consenus. And I have read time and again that its not the weight of
the anchor but its geometric design, but this too is often
contradicted.

And certainly there is no consenus on what the best anchor is,
probably because there is no one best anchor for all conditions. So
for the ultimate holding power the anchor has to match the bottom
conditions.

A good angle of pull on the anchor should be attained by the use of adequate
scope.


Sailing since '67 Mic.

"craigsmith" u22396@uwe wrote

Your comments about scope are just plain wrong. This is important. No
anchor
is designed to work with a particular scope; on the contrary, all anchors
work better the more scope you have. The ideal is horizontal, hence the
use
of chain or kellets to attain an angle lower than that of a straight line
between the anchor and the boat. We therefore use a horizontal angle in
any
testing to provide a level playing field; otherwise those boaters more
experienced would object to a particular scope being used, as it may favor
(or hurt) a particular anchor.

I stand by my statement about the rode. I spent 3 days doing in the water
tests in the BVI/USVI last year with several Bruce and plow patterns to see
how they stacked up with the Spade. Tests were conducted in the coral sand
bottom at Deadman's Bay, Peter Island, eel grass over sand at Setting Point,
Anegada, heavy marl in Coral Bay, St. John and soupy mud in Great Cruz Bay.
Rode was 3/8 HT. Using weighted pool noodles to mark the drop and set
points and steel tapes we recorded the setting distance among other things
at various scopes. As the scope was increased past about 4:1 the setting
distance increased significantly on almost every pattern. Most would not
begin to set until the shank was lifted off the bottom. On the other hand,
once set, holding power increased with increasing scope leveling out just
past 7:1 in all bottoms on most patterns with slightly more rode required in
the soupy mud.

I have plenty of stills of the results but no movies.

Going down again Wednesday with my camcorder but not hauling 3 anchors like
last time. We have 2 boats with 3 different patterns and I may try to bum a
couple more from the charter company.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

Mic stated:
So it is not of "ultimate"
use under those conditions. But who said it was?
Wayne was just trolling. The fact that by using a kellet in heavy
weather anchoring is that a chain is less likely to become taut than
without one except in extreme conditons and circumstances. In other
words a chain will go taut latter (if at all depending on the
conditons) with the use of a kellet or more chain than sooner without
based on experience and knowledge. At which point the concern would
not just be that of ultimate holding power but chafe, deck hardware
strenght, integrity of snubbers, etc.

An attempt to correct misinformation and ill considered advice is not a
troll, it is normal newsgroup give and take. If you can't take the
heat stay out of the kitchen.

As I stated earlier, 3/8 chain will go taut at about 1200 lbs. That is
not an extreme condition at all, if fact it is only about 20% of the
safe working load of 3/8 HT chain. If you don't believe me, show up
with your strain guages and I will provide the test boat. I routinely
set my anchor with approximately that load and have suffered no loss of
deck hardware or anything else. It is also about the force generated
by my boat in about 30 to 35 knots of wind, windy but certainly not
extreme. I have sized my ground tackle to withstand 50 to 60 knot
conditions, approximately the force of a full blown thunder squall. So
far, so good. A kellet would serve no purpose whatsoever except
clutter.

Glenn said:

I stand by my statement about the rode. I spent 3 days doing in the
water
tests in the BVI/USVI last year with several Bruce and plow patterns to
see
how they stacked up with the Spade. Tests were conducted in the coral
sand
bottom at Deadman's Bay, Peter Island, eel grass over sand at Setting
Point,
Anegada, heavy marl in Coral Bay, St. John and soupy mud in Great Cruz
Bay.
Rode was 3/8 HT. Using weighted pool noodles to mark the drop and set
points and steel tapes we recorded the setting distance among other
things
at various scopes. As the scope was increased past about 4:1 the
setting
distance increased significantly on almost every pattern. Most would
not
begin to set until the shank was lifted off the bottom. On the other
hand,
once set, holding power increased with increasing scope leveling out
just
past 7:1 in all bottoms on most patterns with slightly more rode
required in
the soupy mud.


That's why my anchoring modus is to lower the anchor in a controlled
fashion to the bottom, let out a little scope to let it drag to proper
position, and then let out 3-1 (faster than the boat moves, but not to
pile the chain on top of the anchor) and stop. Nearly all the time,
the boat will drift back, and, the anchor set. If not, nearly always
(otherwise), it will shortly set, as seen by the chain going taut. I
just tripped on that by doing it, not by reading the reports; it seems
to work...

Then I let out my anticipated scope, usually 5 to 7:1, in a bunch
(faster than the boat moves). That causes the boat to veer off and
blow down. As the chain starts to tigthen, it pulls the bow back
around, and, again, I look for the jerk (not the one standing over the
windlass button).

If it comes up short and hard, I assume it's reasonably set, back down
to be sure, and then attach the snubber and let out the required extra
to allow the chain to hang straight down...

YMMV as to your method, but it's pretty painless and doesn't involve
backing down until it's reasonably sure to be set.

L8R

Skip

Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
http://tinyurl.com/p7rb4 - NOTE:new URL! The vessel as Tehamana, as we
bought her

"And then again, when you sit at the helm of your little ship on a
clear
night, and gaze at the countless stars overhead, and realize that you
are
quite alone on a great, wide sea, it is apt to occur to you that in the
general scheme of things you are merely an insignificant speck on the
surface of the ocean; and are not nearly so important or as
self-sufficient
as you thought you were. Which is an exceedingly wholesome thought,
and one
that may effect a permanent change in your deportment that will be
greatly
appreciated by your friends."- James S. Pitkin