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

This is a good one!
Gordon

"Gordon" wrote

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

This is a good one

This is a one of the best examples of shallow water roll over dynamics that
I've seen and is similar to what Ken Barnes was describing in the clips I
saw. There are some differences however.

This incident happened in shallow water where the waves are feeling the
bottom so that the lower part is being slowed down while the breaking crest
continues at higher speed. If you look closely, you can see the impulse and
snap as the keel, entrained in the slower moving water, trips the boat as
tons of impact push on the topsides. If the boat had been end on, lower
resistance of the keel, greater longitudinal stability, and less topside
area to be acted on might have let the boat remain upright and only be
swept. There still would have been tremendous force on the companionway.
It looks as though it was open and the boat probably would have taken on a
lot more water if pooped. She probably would have kept her rig though which
would have been important if far from rescue. Easier to bail than re-rig.

It doesn't appear as if the wave was the 20 feet quoted. Looking at the
size of the crest and the boat makes it hard to believe how any boat could
survive tthe open ocean. However, waves break differently in deep water.
Without the bottom effect, there is less difference in velocity between top
and bottom. Waves combine until too high and steep to retain their shape.
Aided by the wind, the tops collapse. There still can be huge forces but
they are more vertical. This means that the wave crest has to be larger,
large enough for the weight of water above the boat to develope sufficient
force or for the boat to fall off the face. The probability of capsize is
orders of magnitude less or no one would be sailing deepwater in small
boats.

What this vidio illustrates beautifully is the extreme danger posed by waves
that are feeling the bottom. Anytime there is a big sea running and you are
in water less than twice the depth of the average wave height, this could
easily happen to you. Attempting to seek shelter through channels bounded
by shallow water while tired and scared is a perfect set up for this kind of
accident.

Whether in shallow water or deep, the vessel faces the same dilemma.
Staying end on to the seas reduces capsize risk. Speed may allow the boat
to surf ahead of the crest or maneuver to avoid the worst part. Both
however, increase the risk of plunging the bow into the back of the wave
ahead where the surface water is moving in the reverse direction. The
forward moving water of the following wave surface can be fast enough to
momentarily slow flow over the rudder enough to eliminate steering
effectiveness. Broaching into the trough of a wave in front of a collapsing
crest is av good set up for a roll over. A smaller boat may do better in a
some waves because it is too slow and short for the bow to reach the trough
before the wave passes. However, the smaller boat will experience the same
dangerous dynamics in smaller waves that it is more likely to encounter.

Statistics and probability factor into all of this in a major way. For
every set of wave conditions and even for each individual wave, there is an
optimum speed and course. Survival is maximized by having fresh, alert, and
skilled helmsmen that can constantly adjust. Fatigue eventually forces the
single hander or small crew to simply let the boat sail itself or, in
extreme conditions, lie a hull. It's then like sleeping in the middle of a
shipping lane. You may get run over and you may not.

From what I can descern of Ken Barnes' experience, it may not have been
sufficient to have maximized his chances of having just the right sail plan,
speed, and attitude for the conditions. This doesn't mean that the accident
happend because he wasn't up to the task. He could have been the most
experienced roaring 40's sailor on the planet at optimum speed and still
been hit by a wave running just enough differently from the rest to catch
the boat wrong. Someone could also do just about everything wrong and still
luck out. Ultimately, this is high stakes gambling. You can do a lot to
improve your odds but there are no guarantees on the outcome.

Nothing reveals the ignorance and lack of sea sense of armchair coastal
putterers more than the posts that Barnes must have been a poor sailor
simply because he lost his boat in the great southern ocean. There are few
simple and sweeping statements you can make about the sea. About the
closest is this, if you get your sailboat into conditions where large waves
are breaking due to bottom effect you are in deep, deep ****, man.

Roger ,,, on and on you go. Always the same theme. You know everything
and anybody who disagrees is not a sailor but a "putterer".

"Nothing reveals the ignorance and lack of sea sense of armchair coastal
putterers more than the posts that Barnes must have been a poor sailor
simply because he lost his boat in the great southern ocean. There are few
simple and sweeping statements you can make about the sea. About the
closest is this, if you get your sailboat into conditions where large waves
are breaking due to bottom effect you are in deep, deep ****, man. "

Why don't you for once just admit you don't have any idea what happened to
Ken Barnes and his boat.
What we do know is this: he set out to sail around the world. He was in a
very well constructed boat.
Somehow, his well constructed boat got damaged, it did not sink. Mr Barnes
decided to leave his well constructed
boat and the boat is now sunk.

These are the facts.

Calling people "putterers" because they might have a different opinion from
yours, cheapens the value of your conjecture.

I fancy the word putterer. In fact, I like it. Until I am able to sail off
for 6 months at a stretch, and experience all that the ocean has to offer on
a small sailboat; being a putterer is fine with me.

Captain "Putterer" .. and proud of it.





"Roger Long" wrote in message
...

"Gordon" wrote

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

This is a good one

This is a one of the best examples of shallow water roll over dynamics
that I've seen and is similar to what Ken Barnes was describing in the
clips I saw. There are some differences however.

This incident happened in shallow water where the waves are feeling the
bottom so that the lower part is being slowed down while the breaking
crest continues at higher speed. If you look closely, you can see the
impulse and snap as the keel, entrained in the slower moving water, trips
the boat as tons of impact push on the topsides. If the boat had been end
on, lower resistance of the keel, greater longitudinal stability, and less
topside area to be acted on might have let the boat remain upright and
only be swept. There still would have been tremendous force on the
companionway. It looks as though it was open and the boat probably would
have taken on a lot more water if pooped. She probably would have kept
her rig though which would have been important if far from rescue. Easier
to bail than re-rig.

It doesn't appear as if the wave was the 20 feet quoted. Looking at the
size of the crest and the boat makes it hard to believe how any boat could
survive tthe open ocean. However, waves break differently in deep water.
Without the bottom effect, there is less difference in velocity between
top and bottom. Waves combine until too high and steep to retain their
shape. Aided by the wind, the tops collapse. There still can be huge
forces but they are more vertical. This means that the wave crest has to
be larger, large enough for the weight of water above the boat to develope
sufficient force or for the boat to fall off the face. The probability of
capsize is orders of magnitude less or no one would be sailing deepwater
in small boats.

What this vidio illustrates beautifully is the extreme danger posed by
waves that are feeling the bottom. Anytime there is a big sea running and
you are in water less than twice the depth of the average wave height,
this could easily happen to you. Attempting to seek shelter through
channels bounded by shallow water while tired and scared is a perfect set
up for this kind of accident.

Whether in shallow water or deep, the vessel faces the same dilemma.
Staying end on to the seas reduces capsize risk. Speed may allow the boat
to surf ahead of the crest or maneuver to avoid the worst part. Both
however, increase the risk of plunging the bow into the back of the wave
ahead where the surface water is moving in the reverse direction. The
forward moving water of the following wave surface can be fast enough to
momentarily slow flow over the rudder enough to eliminate steering
effectiveness. Broaching into the trough of a wave in front of a
collapsing crest is av good set up for a roll over. A smaller boat may do
better in a some waves because it is too slow and short for the bow to
reach the trough before the wave passes. However, the smaller boat will
experience the same dangerous dynamics in smaller waves that it is more
likely to encounter.

Statistics and probability factor into all of this in a major way. For
every set of wave conditions and even for each individual wave, there is
an optimum speed and course. Survival is maximized by having fresh, alert,
and skilled helmsmen that can constantly adjust. Fatigue eventually
forces the single hander or small crew to simply let the boat sail itself
or, in extreme conditions, lie a hull. It's then like sleeping in the
middle of a shipping lane. You may get run over and you may not.

From what I can descern of Ken Barnes' experience, it may not have been
sufficient to have maximized his chances of having just the right sail
plan, speed, and attitude for the conditions. This doesn't mean that the
accident happend because he wasn't up to the task. He could have been the
most experienced roaring 40's sailor on the planet at optimum speed and
still been hit by a wave running just enough differently from the rest to
catch the boat wrong. Someone could also do just about everything wrong
and still luck out. Ultimately, this is high stakes gambling. You can do
a lot to improve your odds but there are no guarantees on the outcome.

Nothing reveals the ignorance and lack of sea sense of armchair coastal
putterers more than the posts that Barnes must have been a poor sailor
simply because he lost his boat in the great southern ocean. There are
few simple and sweeping statements you can make about the sea. About the
closest is this, if you get your sailboat into conditions where large
waves are breaking due to bottom effect you are in deep, deep ****, man.

Is this the best you can offer?

====================
"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:54:45 GMT, "NE Sailboat"
wrote:

Roger ,,, on and on you go. Always the same theme. You know everything
and anybody who disagrees is not a sailor but a "putterer".

"Nothing reveals the ignorance and lack of sea sense of armchair coastal
putterers more than the posts that Barnes must have been a poor sailor
simply because he lost his boat in the great southern ocean. There are
few
simple and sweeping statements you can make about the sea. About the
closest is this, if you get your sailboat into conditions where large
waves
are breaking due to bottom effect you are in deep, deep ****, man. "

Why don't you for once just admit you don't have any idea what happened to
Ken Barnes and his boat.
What we do know is this: he set out to sail around the world. He was in
a
very well constructed boat.
Somehow, his well constructed boat got damaged, it did not sink. Mr
Barnes
decided to leave his well constructed
boat and the boat is now sunk.

These are the facts.

Calling people "putterers" because they might have a different opinion
from
yours, cheapens the value of your conjecture.

I fancy the word putterer. In fact, I like it. Until I am able to sail
off
for 6 months at a stretch, and experience all that the ocean has to offer
on
a small sailboat; being a putterer is fine with me.

Captain "Putterer" .. and proud of it.


I think "Captain Putz" suits you better.

CWM

"NE Sailboat" wrote in
news:95tph.8464$312.5602@trndny02:

Roger ,,, on and on you go. Always the same theme. You know
everything and anybody who disagrees is not a sailor but a "putterer".

I'm just glad that you so quickly connected this description with yourself.

-- Geoff

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

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.

"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.

Frogwatch wrote:

Why was his companionway open?

Hard to put yourself in the mind of a terrified human being. I would guess
that his panicked 2 year old child on board had a lot to do with the hatch
being open. Being rolled over may have been the last thing on his mind and
watching and reassuring a terrified child would be hard to talk yourself out
of doing.

As to what he was doing out in those conditions with a 2 year old and no
adult... well, maybe that just gives us an insight into his level of
judgement.


With no power and no way to sail out of the situation, wouldnt he have
been better to simply anchor?

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.

--
Roger Long

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?