krj wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
Roger Long wrote:
NE Sailboat wrote:

Why don't you for once just admit you don't have any idea what
happened to Ken Barnes and his boat.
With pleasure. I'd don't know for sure what happened to his boat
despite
figuring out what happened to boats and ships being one of my
professional
functions.

I do know, via the Internet clips, what Ken Barnes says happens to
his boat.
It is similar enough to what has happened to many previous vessels
and what
is probably the primary hazard in deep water cruising that is is worth
discussing and thinking about. Having studied quite a few marine
casualty
accounts and attempted to correlate them with other facts over the
years it
wouldn't surprise me a bit if Ken Barnes doesn't even know what
happened to
his boat but only thinks he does.

I'm not aware of any statement of mine that would make disagreeing
with me
in any way relative to the question of being a "putterer".
People who disagee with me are my most valuable and respected
professional
resource in things like my Titanic research. Puttering about in boats
is a
perfectly respectable activity and probably a lot saner and, I believe
ultimately more rewarding, than making deep water voyages for their
own sake
and seeing nothing but waves for weeks on end. It's just making
judgements
about the ability of someone engaged in the later from the putterer's
perspective that I find a bit grating. It's sort of like hearing an
avid
hiker of the New England woods (itself a perfectly respectable activity)
proclaim that someone who fell far up on the slopes of Mt. Everest
must have
been clumsy.

--
Roger Long

In this video:

Why was his companionway open?

With no power and no way to sail out of the situation, wouldnt he have
been better to simply anchor? The anchor would have brought the bow to
the waves making him much less likely to roll over. Even then, the
breaking waves appear to be few so this would have given the rescuers
time to reach him.

In 3000 feet of water. How much anchor rode do you carry on your boat?
oops wrong post. Thought this was about Barnes.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
oups.com...

In this video:

Why was his companionway open?

With no power and no way to sail out of the situation, wouldnt he have
been better to simply anchor? The anchor would have brought the bow to
the waves making him much less likely to roll over. Even then, the
breaking waves appear to be few so this would have given the rescuers
time to reach him.


Heaving-to may have been a good idea (can't say for certain since I wasn't
there), but anchoring? I can't imagine that being a good idea in those
conditions. Laying to a sea anchor, perhaps.


Wrong vidi -- I was still thinking of Barnes. Regarding the sailboat in the
surf, he would have had to anchor long before getting into the surf. Once
there, he couldn't have laid sufficient scope to hold, and trying to drop,
let alone set it, would likely have holed his hull something fierce.

Karin

Gogarty wrote:

"Titanic," eh? Did you know that the Titanic carried a full suit of
sails?

They wouldn't have done them much good that night.

BTW keep an eye out for the next History Channel show planned to air on
night of the accident April 14/15.

--
Roger Long

Roger, The sinking of the Titanic is compelling once or maybe twice but on
and on. How much more is there to know?

One of my dad's pals lost his uncle on the Titanic. The uncle was on his
way to America from Ireland.

Funny,, my dad's friend told me about the sinking and losing the uncle and
then he went on about how much he hated the Bristish.

Heck, I don't even think he was born yet. But was he ****ed.


=================
"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
Gogarty wrote:

"Titanic," eh? Did you know that the Titanic carried a full suit of
sails?

They wouldn't have done them much good that night.

BTW keep an eye out for the next History Channel show planned to air on
night of the accident April 14/15.

--
Roger Long

NE Sailboat wrote:
Roger, The sinking of the Titanic is compelling once or maybe twice
but on and on. How much more is there to know?

That's the thing about knowing. Just about everything you (retorically and
not individually) "know" about the Titanic turns out to be wrong. It's
going to be a great show.

--
Roger Long

Gordon wrote in
:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxvP3DWi7_k

Luckily for Malcolm's daughter, Daddy DIDN'T buy the catamaran!

The little sloop popped right back up...UPRIGHT...just like she should,
saving the little girl...and her Daddy...(c;

Cats at sea....no thanks. Ask the rescue boys.

Larry
--
Extremely intelligent life exists that is so smart they never called Earth.

Roger Long wrote:
Gogarty wrote:

"Titanic," eh? Did you know that the Titanic carried a full suit of
sails?

\

So did the Mary Celeste! ;)

"Roger Long" wrote in news:45a63053$0$16670
:

Ultimately, this is high stakes gambling. You can do a lot to
improve your odds but there are no guarantees on the outcome.


And, here we are, yet again, with either a flooded engine, flooded fuel
or flooded battery that prevented the engine from being cranked. From it
being English, I'm assuming it's a little diesel, maybe wrongly, but
let's think it is.

From my experiences with the diesels in sailboats, we need to do
something DIFFERENT and NEW with the EXHAUST system...more than a rubber
hose blowing over a loop with a siphon break hole at the top. I bet his
engine was flooded, before the rollover which was quite quick, by the
stupid way diesel exhausts are installed in sailboats, worldwide. Seems
like way too many times they get dismasted, their engines are dead and
can't help them.

Battery flooding takes a long time and he wasn't flooded from the look of
the waterline, again, like Barnes' boat. If she was full of water, the
little girl wouldn't have been swimming around in the cabin, I suppose.
Golf cart batteries have sealed liquid traps in them to take rollovers in
golf carts. I tried turning over an L16H on the dock onto its terminals.
We watched it for leaking. It never leaked a drop with the caps on it.
I suppose if the temperature were changing, it would eventually leak from
the pressure difference, but not just from a rollover. AGM/Gellcells, no
leaking either. Of course, poll your marina some Saturday morning or ask
the membership of any yacht club bar...."Are your batteries tied FIRMLY
down to the deck so the boat can roll over without them moving out of
place?" I'd bet the 99% answer is a resounding NO! How stupid they are.

The fuel tank needs more than just a vent hose, too. It needs some kind
of floating ball water trap that will seal if water tries to come into
the fuel vent in an event like this. Got one? Ever seen one? As the
air must go INTO the tank, we can't just put a flapper valve in it. It
has to be a floating ball that's normally open but closes the hole when
liquid floods the trap. Wish we had one on Lionheart. Let me know if
you've seen something like this. My coffee pot is a Cuisinart with a
vacuum bottle carafe, not a heater/glass pot. The most ingenious coffee
pot engineers design Cuisinarts. The screw-on cap on this pot has a
series of little gravity and floating balls that ingeniously prevent heat
from escaping the pot, while automatically opening the holes at the
appropriate time to let new coffee pour into the top and coffee pour out
the spout ONLY when the pot is tilted towards the spout. The rest of the
time it's sealed. This kind of technology needs to be in everyone's fuel
vent. It's not...it's a hose that assumes the boat never tilts over 20
degrees...dammit.

The diesel will run underwater if the damned air inlet is sticking out
AND the crankcase DOESN'T have an open vent outside the intake. That
belt sure pumps a lotta seawater around, submerged like that!..(c;

In these conditions we need to worry less about sails and rigging and
more about EMERGENCY POWER to the SCREW.

Larry
--
Extremely intelligent life exists that is so smart they never called
Earth.

"Roger Long" wrote in
:

Looking at how little wind there was, I suspect that the boat would
not have headed up into the seas, if indeed the wind was onshore. He
might well have just ended up in the troughs but anchored. That
wouldn't have changed the outcome very much.



All the more reason we all need to pay lots more attention to ENGINE and
POWER than to sails and nostalgia.

Larry
--
Extremely intelligent life exists that is so smart they never called Earth.

Gogarty wrote in
:

People who disagee with me are my most valuable and respected
professional resource in things like my Titanic research.

"Titanic," eh? Did you know that the Titanic carried a full suit of
sails?



Just in case you don't know and haven't seen the fantastic Titanic video,
our Roger Long, himself, is the engineer to figured out how the hull came
apart and proved it on the bottom. You MUST see that video.....

I'm honored to be in Roger's midst, and there's no room here to dispute his
credentials......er, ah, except, maybe, about sails..(c;



Larry
--
Extremely intelligent life exists that is so smart they never called Earth.