The media has been saying it was a "perfect storm" that Ken sailed
into. I wonder if that's just so the public will associate it with a
movie, to make the story meaningful? Or was there a "perfect storm".

The "perfect storm" in the book by that title was explained in the
story in meterological terms, when one weather system meets another at
a certain place, etc... IOW, the term "perfect" meant something more
than "really big".

So I'm wondering if there's a set of circumstances that were at play in
Ken's case, that the cape has it's own type of "perfect storm". And
what it is.

Does anyone know if there are weather satellite pictures of the area at
the time available? It would be interesting to see.

Razzbar wrote:
The media has been saying it was a "perfect storm" that Ken sailed

You believe, or even pay any attention to, what "the media" says about an
event like this? Where have you been?

Saying "perfect storm" sells papers and web clicks.

By his own account, the conditions were actually about as good as you can
hope for in that part of the world when the weather isn't fair. I'll give
him credit for not exaggerating (I thought he said 40 foot seas but I say
later it was 40 knots of wind and 20 foot seas).

The conditions he describes himself would have barely merited mention in
that part of the world if he hadn't damaged his boat. However, the huge and
virtually unlimited fetch combined with conditions that can exist hundreds
or even thousands of miles to the west mean that there could have been a 15
to 20 foot ground swell running under the waves he was experiencing due to
local weather. He might have hardly noticed this wave action superimposed
on the waves he was dealing with. Twenty foot seas in those latitudes are
also much farther between the crests than the 20 foot seas you might see in
the Atlantic. Speed is a direct function of wavelength.

When all these dynamics come together, the result could easily be a wave
that would dismast most vessels. It's a matter of being in the wrong spot
at the wrong time. It's a risk you take, like mountain climbers who go up
with the possiblity that the weather report in hand may be one of the 5%
that are wrong.

--
Roger Long

Any info on what sails he had up? Or any other info such as that kind of
thing?

I still can't figure this one out... the guy is in a boat which is prepared
to go around the world.
Yet, he gets trounced by weather that is normal for the area he is sailing
in.


Just does not make any sense.



==========
"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
Razzbar wrote:
The media has been saying it was a "perfect storm" that Ken sailed

You believe, or even pay any attention to, what "the media" says about an
event like this? Where have you been?

Saying "perfect storm" sells papers and web clicks.

By his own account, the conditions were actually about as good as you can
hope for in that part of the world when the weather isn't fair. I'll give
him credit for not exaggerating (I thought he said 40 foot seas but I say
later it was 40 knots of wind and 20 foot seas).

The conditions he describes himself would have barely merited mention in
that part of the world if he hadn't damaged his boat. However, the huge
and virtually unlimited fetch combined with conditions that can exist
hundreds or even thousands of miles to the west mean that there could have
been a 15 to 20 foot ground swell running under the waves he was
experiencing due to local weather. He might have hardly noticed this wave
action superimposed on the waves he was dealing with. Twenty foot seas in
those latitudes are also much farther between the crests than the 20 foot
seas you might see in the Atlantic. Speed is a direct function of
wavelength.

When all these dynamics come together, the result could easily be a wave
that would dismast most vessels. It's a matter of being in the wrong spot
at the wrong time. It's a risk you take, like mountain climbers who go up
with the possiblity that the weather report in hand may be one of the 5%
that are wrong.

--
Roger Long

Roger Long wrote:
Razzbar wrote:
The media has been saying it was a "perfect storm" that Ken sailed

You believe, or even pay any attention to, what "the media" says about an
event like this? Where have you been?

I look at "the media" as a resource that is neither all right or all
wrong. Do you believe -any- of this story? I'm just trying to get more
information from better informed people, is all.

Saying "perfect storm" sells papers and web clicks.

Indeed. But then again, that's why I asked. Is it not impossible that
there might have been some extreme weather event going on here? It
whetted my curiosity regarding the weather systems at play in that part
of the world. Of course I suspected hype, but then again, maybe there
were some spectacular satellite images.

By his own account, the conditions were actually about as good as you can
hope for in that part of the world when the weather isn't fair.

Thanks -- that was useful. I'll puzzle over what you mean by that...
being as good as you can hope for when it isn't 'fair' (?)... That
would be "fair", correct?

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

.... alas, no perfect storm.

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 15:59:41 -0800, Razzbar wrote:

By his own account, the conditions were actually about as good as you
can hope for in that part of the world when the weather isn't fair.

Thanks -- that was useful. I'll puzzle over what you mean by that... being
as good as you can hope for when it isn't 'fair' (?)... That would be
"fair", correct?

yo Razzbar... "Roaring 40's"... a fair day there is _not_ a good day just
about anywhere else!

"NE Sailboat" wrote in message
news:4ufoh.1475$GL.1211@trndny06...
Any info on what sails he had up?

Geraldo Rivera said the other night that he was unable to furl his sail(s?)
which caused him to be blown over (presumably beam end, but GR was somewhat
confusing, because, though he himself is a very experienced sailor, he was
trying to dummy it down for the audience.)

Rivera also said that the boat was too big to be single-handed. I largley
agree with that, but would want to know more about automated systems, etc.
Why a ketch for a single-hander, and why one with a bowsprit, of all things!

Bill Longyard

mr.b wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 15:59:41 -0800, Razzbar wrote:

yo Razzbar... "Roaring 40's"... a fair day there is _not_ a good day
just about anywhere else!

Exactly, if you are going to sail down there, you should be prepared to
either sail (or die) in 60 - 80 knot winds while recognizing that 25 - 30
knots can produce seas of a size only seen in major Atlantic storms. You
need to be prepared to accept the conditions that sank Barnes as basically
routine. I'm not implying though that he was unprepared or deficient in
skills or equipment. Just about all days are dangerous in that part of the
world.

--
Roger Long

William Longyard wrote:

Geraldo Rivera said the other night that he was unable to furl his
sail(s?)

Even if he was having sail problems, this probably wasn't a wind driven
accident unless the rig had developed some fatigue weak points. Given the
extent of his preparations and expenditure, that doesn't seem likely.

A knockdown, even with too much sail, shouldn't have taken the rig out of a
boat like this; certainly not to the extent shown in the pictures. Being
rolled by large wave action with the full weight of the boat dragging the
rig, with it's enormous hydrodynamic drag, through the water is what
dismasts boats. Where inability to get the sails off factors in is their
drag making them virtually unmovable in the water. Turn the boat upside
down, bury the masts in the ground, and then expect it to withstand an
earthquake. Those are the kinds of forces we are talking about.

Boats occasionally withstand rolling without dismasting but seldom with
sails up. Minimizing drag is important if rolling is a possibility.
Something to thing about with a big sausage of rolled genoa on the headstay.

Size works both ways. The waves are relatively smaller as the boat gets
larger but, when you get into really big seas like the southern ocean, there
isn't much difference. The motion of the larger boat will be less tiring
but it takes a lot more energy to do anything on deck. When energy is
critical, managing the small boat will be much easier. When you are just
steering or hunkered down, the larger is better. If one person is pumping
by hand after flooding due to a roll or being swept, it will be a lot less
work in the small boat. Scale effects make smaller boats inherrently
stronger.

Donna isn't as crazy as it might seem to be down there in her 28 footer but
it's like climbing Mt. Everest, some are going to die. Did anyone see the
"Everest - over the limit" on Discovery Channel? Big strong guys in perfect
physical condition don't make it and old, weak, people with recent
operations do. Sailing is like that.

Speaking of being rolled:

Back when I was researching sailing vessel accidents, I read an account of a
60 foot racing sloop being delivered across the Pacific in the winter by a
professional crew. They were rolled and dismasted and limped in with a jury
rig. The timing and account of the roll didn't make any sense with the
physics until I put it into this possible scenario.

Build a tripod on an inner tube or life ring type float and hang a pendulum
in it. As a wave goes by, the pendulum will always point to the center of
the float, even if the ring goes upside down inside the tube of a breaking
wave. There are videos of this in a wave tank. The pendulum can point
straight up. It's the same kind of motion that lets you sweep a glass of
water upside down without spilling.

The description of the roll over made perfect sense if the boat went up
inside the crest of a large breaking wave. The crew, hunkered down and
focused with tunnel vision on the compass and water's surface ahead were
inside the curl of the wave with mast pointed down and still thinking they
were in a normal attitude. Then, the mast hit the water changing the
physics as it dragged and stopped the wave acceleration that was creating an
artifical sense of "down". Down instantly shifted back towards the center
of the earth and the wave collapsed on top of them. This was a 60 foot
boat. Think of the scale of this event. Waves big enough to do this have
been confirmed on their route and time of year.

A wave of similar size rolled a ketch named Tz Hang (I think) in the same
part of the world as Barnes and Lange are sailing in. These mega breakers
may also be associated with as yet undiscovered sea mounts that are way, way
deeper than would be a concernt to ships as far as hitting them is concerned
but which can break the huge waves that can develop on these large oceans.

--
Roger Long

Since you seem to present yourself as an expert .... tell us how this guy
was ever going to make it around the world?


"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 23:36:32 GMT, "NE Sailboat"
wrote:

Any info on what sails he had up? Or any other info such as that kind of
thing?

I still can't figure this one out... the guy is in a boat which is
prepared
to go around the world.
Yet, he gets trounced by weather that is normal for the area he is sailing
in.


Just does not make any sense.


To a non- sailor who like to jump to conclusions without a clue, it would
never
make sense.

CWM

"Roger Long" wrote in
:

Exactly, if you are going to sail down there, you should be prepared
to either sail (or die) in 60 - 80 knot winds while recognizing that
25 - 30 knots can produce seas of a size only seen in major Atlantic
storms. You need to be prepared to accept the conditions that sank
Barnes as basically routine. I'm not implying though that he was
unprepared or deficient in skills or equipment. Just about all days
are dangerous in that part of the world.



All this just to avoid a few weeks waiting and a few thousand dollars in
bribes at the Panama Canal we STUPID Americans just gave away....

Dumb, really dumb.