Mic wrote:
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?

Yes, of course.

This would tend to support the statement that there is no one anchor
for all conditions.

Well, how many anchors do you want to carry onboard. Our ideal is a general
purpose anchor that addresses the failings of the old traditional plows and
claws, provides excellent performance in everything from very soft mud to
very hard sand (all extremes), cuts through weed and grass, is strong enough
to deal with being fouled or used with rock or coral, and so on.

The argument of carrying a claw, plow, Danforth, and fisherman's, each to
address the problems of the others, is nonsense nowadays, because it is
possible to consolidate the weight into perhaps two anchors that will more
reliably and safely meet all requirements. More may be carried as required,
but are not needed to compensate for the poor aspects of the others.

We know from experience that a Rocna will be happy in ALL conditions (except
rock, for which this is no ideal anchor - use a grapnel and be prepared to
lose it). But we are biased and you may choose not to believe us

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

So what? Of course it can, no-one is debating the fact that weight can
provide a bit of shock-absorption and also decrease the rode angle - but not
by enough to make it worthwhile.
http://alain.fraysse.free.fr/sail/rode/dynam/dynam.htm and study the whole
page, particularly sections 2 and 6.

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)

I have read much of Gord May's ideas about anchoring, and much of it is very
misleading and some of it just plain wrong. He is absolutely not an authority
on this topic.

http://www.anchorbuddy.co.nz/
"They...
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?

It's an exaggeration.

The ultimate holding power of the anchor cannot be increased by the use of a
kellet, UNLESS it is really big enough in relation to the rest of the system.
You have to understand you are talking about absolutes; i.e. fixed weights
and scale.

For example a 10Kg Rocna, well set, may hold up to a tonne of force. This is
realistic. Assume you have appropriate rode. The anchor will cope with this,
assuming the pull angle is reasonably low. Now the appropriate Anchor Buddy
would be their 8Kg model. Do you honestly think that 8Kg is going to make the
slightest bit of difference to said pull angle, when there is a 1000Kg strain
on the rode?

As you say it will make a bit of difference when the storm has passed, and
there's only 100Kg strain on the rode. So what, you're not worried about
dragging anymore. Hence, a kellet makes next to no difference to ultimate
holding power.

Now consider how much extra holding power an 18Kg anchor would provide,
compared to the 10Kg. Or, if you have the area, add 8Kg more chain to the
system, so increasing the scope.

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.

It's both, and the focus depends on the anchor. Really weight is, or should
be, less of an issue, hence why the newer designs such as ours put more
emphasis on fluke area and dynamic performance. Consider how 10Kg weight-
force (a little less underwater anyway) compares with 1000Kg rode-force, as
in my example above, and you will see what I mean.

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.

Consensus should not be the basis for any kind of scientific decision,
especially not in a field where there are so many misconceptions and almost
dogmatic beliefs. Get to the bottom of the theory, do your own research, get
some experience, and make your own decisions.

--
Craig Smith
Rocna Anchors
www.rocna.com

Message posted via BoatKB.com
http://www.boatkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/cruising/200605/1