Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Well, if that's the case, it's a good example of what Winston
Churchill said about being divided by a common language and an apology (from this end) is in order. I've encountered so much confusion over the years on this point, (even from Coast Guard officers with naval architectural degrees engaged in writing regulations) that I'm probably primed to expect it. Since we have managed to so thoroughly confuse each other, I'm sure almost everyone else is lost as well. For their benefit and not to talk down to you: Let's look at the simplest case, a catboat with an un-stayed mast. The hull and ballast are a given and you now want to figure out how bit to make the mast. You determine the maximum righting moment which will be in the 35 - 45 degree range for this kind of boat. The mast is a simple lever and maximum material stress will be at the deck. The bending moment will exactly equal the righting moment. Once you know the material properties, it's a quick calculation to determine the required diameter, with a proper safety factor applied. Now, you decide your catboat is a little slow so you decide to double the sail area. Do you need to make the mast bigger? No. The righting moment, which limits the force on the mast will be the same. The only difference is that the boat can be heeled to any particular angle in much less wind. The force on the mast will be the same at any particular heel angle as it was before the sail increase. Actually, because you have added the weight of longer mast, boom, and gaff, as well as more sail material, the center of gravity will be slightly higher. This reduces the righting moment. This is within the fuzzy factor of the calculations as used in the real world but, if you were to compulsively design to exact loads, stresses, and safety factors, you would find that the boat with the larger sail plan could paradoxically have a slightly smaller mast. -- Roger Long "DSK" wrote in message .. . Roger Long wrote: Nope, Doug. That statement shows that you are still not getting it. Bull****, I've said the SAME THING that you're saying. Look it up. Maybe you're having a bad morning and just need to feel superior? Think it through some more. I know from your other posts that you are smart enough to get the light to go on. Thanks a lot. DSK |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roger Long wrote:
Well, if that's the case, it's a good example of what Winston Churchill said about being divided by a common language and an apology (from this end) is in order. Roger, I'll apologize and start all over as well. I've encountered so much confusion over the years on this point, (even from Coast Guard officers with naval architectural degrees engaged in writing regulations) that I'm probably primed to expect it. Could be... one reason why I'mn a bit frustrated is that you don't seem to be reading my posts. For example, what Wayne B was talking about is exactly what I meant. Since we have managed to so thoroughly confuse each other, I'm sure almost everyone else is lost as well. For their benefit and not to talk down to you: Let's look at the simplest case, a catboat with an un-stayed mast. The hull and ballast are a given and you now want to figure out how bit to make the mast. You determine the maximum righting moment which will be in the 35 - 45 degree range for this kind of boat. The mast is a simple lever and maximum material stress will be at the deck. The bending moment will exactly equal the righting moment. Once you know the material properties, it's a quick calculation to determine the required diameter, with a proper safety factor applied. Now, you decide your catboat is a little slow so you decide to double the sail area. Do you need to make the mast bigger? No. The righting moment, which limits the force on the mast will be the same. The only difference is that the boat can be heeled to any particular angle in much less wind. The force on the mast will be the same at any particular heel angle as it was before the sail increase. Exactly so. And the benefit to the boat's performance will be in lighter air, and perhaps downwind (depending on a lot of factors). The power developed by the rig has to be counteracted by the boat's righting moment... more power means more heeling... and once the boat is heeled past it's most efficient sailing angle, the boat ain't goin' one lick faster. However, it will go faster in lighter air and reach it's maximum developed power sooner. Actually, because you have added the weight of longer mast, boom, and gaff, as well as more sail material, the center of gravity will be slightly higher. This reduces the righting moment. This is within the fuzzy factor of the calculations as used in the real world but, if you were to compulsively design to exact loads, stresses, and safety factors, you would find that the boat with the larger sail plan could paradoxically have a slightly smaller mast. heh heh reduced windage, greater efficiency... a snowball effect... at what point can you have infinitely large sails with no mast at all? Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"DSK" wrote heh heh reduced windage, greater
efficiency... a snowball effect... at what point can you have infinitely large sails with no mast at all? Oh, so you want to follow that progression down to the end do you? (I'm assuming this is a joke because, if you understand this as well as you say you do, the answer is already obvious.) All else being equal, the mast can get smaller as the rig gets larger. At the same time though, the amount of wind that will heel the boat to any specific angle is getting less since the righting moment is being decreased by the weight of the added spars and rigging. The sails could never be infinitely large because the added weight of cloth, booms, and gaff will eventually bring the center of gravity high enough that stability is zero. At that point, there will be no load on the rig from wind and the mast could be infinitely small if there were some other way to transfer the loads from the sails to the hull. -- Roger Long |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
... at what point can you have infinitely large sails with no
mast at all? Roger Long wrote: Oh, so you want to follow that progression down to the end do you? (I'm assuming this is a joke because, if you understand this as well as you say you do, the answer is already obvious.) All else being equal, the mast can get smaller as the rig gets larger. At the same time though, the amount of wind that will heel the boat to any specific angle is getting less since the righting moment is being decreased by the weight of the added spars and rigging. The sails could never be infinitely large because the added weight of cloth, booms, and gaff will eventually bring the center of gravity high enough that stability is zero. At that point, there will be no load on the rig from wind and the mast could be infinitely small if there were some other way to transfer the loads from the sails to the hull. We'll make the spars out of carbon nanotubes inflated with hydrogen so that they're lighter than air, and magnetize the sails with an electrostatic charge to transfer the "sheet" loads. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clarke Another possible solution is this http://www.kiteship.com/ which looks like it would pose less need for righting moment but even larger need for structural analysis. I'd like to try one of these. A point I was trying to make earlier is that while loads on the rig (mast & standing rigging) are limited by the boat's righting moment, the actual force on any given piece of rigging can be far larger because of the geometry. For example, the tension on the shrouds can be huge because they are opposed by the opposite shroud and the compression of the mast. Then you have the sheet loads, vang, halyard tension, etc etc. The aggregate (or net) of these forces will equal the righting moment plus the force required to drive the boat thru the water at speed, but the boat's structure has to be capable of holding up to the sum of these forces. This is probably not very clearly states so I will apologize in advance and brace for argument ![]() Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|