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.