Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Water ballast (WAS: Catalina 250)
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:02:00 +0000, DSK wrote:
Lloyd Sumpter wrote: Tell me, is your boat's stability increased by filling a fuel tank down low in the hull? Fuel is definitely lighter than water. How about a big cooler full of ice & beer? Compared to AIR, yes. Compared to lead, no. I'd show you the mathematics if you feed me beer. Math, huh? Do you do numbers any better than you do logic? So... because lead ballast is better, as ballast, does that mean water cannot function AT ALL as ballast? No. Of course not. Yes, it does. (actually, it's physics, not math, but you owe me a beer anyway) Draw a diagram if you like. Now, the keel imparts a righting moment on the boat because it exerts a downward force offset (in the x-dir) from the center of rotation by the distance from the CofR (ie how deep the keel is) and the angle of heel. Problem is, a water-filled keel does not sink and therefore exerts NO downward force in water! (actually it does sink a bit because the fibreglass the keel is made from sinks. You'd be better off with a solid fibreglass keel...) Remember the water-filled bottle? People think that because water is "heavy" in air means that it's also "heavy" (ie exerts a significant downward force) in water. This is simply not the case. Imagine this: get a boat with no keel and a mast. Put a rope on the mast and pull on it, giving the boat heel. Now, put a boom out the upward side with a bucket filled with water. As long as the bucket is in air, it exerts a righting moment against the rope. But when it's in the water, the only righting moment from the bucket is from the bucket itself - the water exerts no righting moment whatsoever. Now, having a water-filled keel that exerts virtually no downward force is still preferable to an air-filled keel, which exerts an UPWARD force. Also, water in the keel will help the boat's "stability" in that it increases the overall mass (F=ma) so movement is dampened. But "ballast"? No. Lloyd Sumpter "Far Cove" Catalina 36 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Water ballast (WAS: Catalina 250)
I'm going to print this out and read it thoroughly, but, overall, I'm
going to disagree. Filling a fuel tank or beer cooler, down low in the hull, will DEFINITELY increase stability. It's a question of added weights to the hull. Water Ballast, is a great way to add draft as well as stability, to a hull (unless you leave the tank slack, in which case, the "free surface" can outweigh the additional stability). otn Lloyd Sumpter wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:02:00 +0000, DSK wrote: Lloyd Sumpter wrote: Tell me, is your boat's stability increased by filling a fuel tank down low in the hull? Fuel is definitely lighter than water. How about a big cooler full of ice & beer? Compared to AIR, yes. Compared to lead, no. I'd show you the mathematics if you feed me beer. Math, huh? Do you do numbers any better than you do logic? So... because lead ballast is better, as ballast, does that mean water cannot function AT ALL as ballast? No. Of course not. Yes, it does. (actually, it's physics, not math, but you owe me a beer anyway) Draw a diagram if you like. Now, the keel imparts a righting moment on the boat because it exerts a downward force offset (in the x-dir) from the center of rotation by the distance from the CofR (ie how deep the keel is) and the angle of heel. Problem is, a water-filled keel does not sink and therefore exerts NO downward force in water! (actually it does sink a bit because the fibreglass the keel is made from sinks. You'd be better off with a solid fibreglass keel...) Remember the water-filled bottle? People think that because water is "heavy" in air means that it's also "heavy" (ie exerts a significant downward force) in water. This is simply not the case. Imagine this: get a boat with no keel and a mast. Put a rope on the mast and pull on it, giving the boat heel. Now, put a boom out the upward side with a bucket filled with water. As long as the bucket is in air, it exerts a righting moment against the rope. But when it's in the water, the only righting moment from the bucket is from the bucket itself - the water exerts no righting moment whatsoever. Now, having a water-filled keel that exerts virtually no downward force is still preferable to an air-filled keel, which exerts an UPWARD force. Also, water in the keel will help the boat's "stability" in that it increases the overall mass (F=ma) so movement is dampened. But "ballast"? No. Lloyd Sumpter "Far Cove" Catalina 36 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Catalina 250
OK...take your basic Merit/Olsen/Martin/Hotfoot/J and:.
Lloyd if you new anything you would know that the Merit and Olson are nothing like the Martin and the Hotfoot. By the way the displacement of the Catalina 250 is not far off from the Merit or Olson so there goes the rest of your argument. S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster" Trains are a winter sport |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Catalina 250
4. Add 6 mos accumulation of marine growth on the hull
So are you saying that the Catalina comes into her own under these conditions? S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster" Trains are a winter sport |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Catalina 250
Loco enjoys bashing boats and anyone who doesn't like what he likes.
LOL.................. Your the main boat basher. I just offered an opinion on some better alternatives in 25' boats. S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster" Trains are a winter sport |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Water ballast (WAS: Catalina 250)
PS Add weight to the hull and you change stability. Add it high, you
lessen stability, add it low, and you increase stability. The type/composition of the weight, is immaterial. otn otnmbrd wrote: I'm going to print this out and read it thoroughly, but, overall, I'm going to disagree. Filling a fuel tank or beer cooler, down low in the hull, will DEFINITELY increase stability. It's a question of added weights to the hull. Water Ballast, is a great way to add draft as well as stability, to a hull (unless you leave the tank slack, in which case, the "free surface" can outweigh the additional stability). otn Lloyd Sumpter wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:02:00 +0000, DSK wrote: Lloyd Sumpter wrote: Tell me, is your boat's stability increased by filling a fuel tank down low in the hull? Fuel is definitely lighter than water. How about a big cooler full of ice & beer? Compared to AIR, yes. Compared to lead, no. I'd show you the mathematics if you feed me beer. Math, huh? Do you do numbers any better than you do logic? So... because lead ballast is better, as ballast, does that mean water cannot function AT ALL as ballast? No. Of course not. Yes, it does. (actually, it's physics, not math, but you owe me a beer anyway) Draw a diagram if you like. Now, the keel imparts a righting moment on the boat because it exerts a downward force offset (in the x-dir) from the center of rotation by the distance from the CofR (ie how deep the keel is) and the angle of heel. Problem is, a water-filled keel does not sink and therefore exerts NO downward force in water! (actually it does sink a bit because the fibreglass the keel is made from sinks. You'd be better off with a solid fibreglass keel...) Remember the water-filled bottle? People think that because water is "heavy" in air means that it's also "heavy" (ie exerts a significant downward force) in water. This is simply not the case. Imagine this: get a boat with no keel and a mast. Put a rope on the mast and pull on it, giving the boat heel. Now, put a boom out the upward side with a bucket filled with water. As long as the bucket is in air, it exerts a righting moment against the rope. But when it's in the water, the only righting moment from the bucket is from the bucket itself - the water exerts no righting moment whatsoever. Now, having a water-filled keel that exerts virtually no downward force is still preferable to an air-filled keel, which exerts an UPWARD force. Also, water in the keel will help the boat's "stability" in that it increases the overall mass (F=ma) so movement is dampened. But "ballast"? No. Lloyd Sumpter "Far Cove" Catalina 36 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Water ballast (WAS: Catalina 250)
Lloyd Sumpter wrote:
People think that because water is "heavy" in air means that it's also "heavy" (ie exerts a significant downward force) in water. This is simply not the case. True enough, but totally irrelevant. Which weighs more, a ton of feathers or a ton of lead? You are totally off base and your physics is wrong. Sorry to be so blunt. You have no concept of what produces rightning moment; I suggest reading a good simplified text on naval architecture, such as Robert Perry's book or Skene's Elements of Yacht Design. Read the section on "metacentric height' two or three times. You point out that lead sinks and water does not. It seems to me that the point is to increase stability of the boat, not to sink it. Wouldn't water ballast be better, then? If you like to paint imaginary scenarios illustrating how water functions as ballast, then picture the following: a big ice chest full of cold beer. Take it aboard your boat. The boat sinks a little deeper as the weight of the cooler comes aboard, it's displacement has increased. In other words, the boat is supporting the weight of that cooler & it's contents, wether those contents are feathers or depleted uranium. Now hoist that cooler to the top of the mast and try heeling the boat. Of course, stability has been reduced, it will take less force to heel the boat to any given angle. Now lower the cooler and place it as low as possible against the bottom of the hull. Try heeling the boat again, of course you'll find that stability has been improved. It will take more force to heel the boat to any given angle. Taa Daa! A cooler full of ice & beer, which is absolutely lighter than water and does not sink, has become ballast. You're welcome. Doug King |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Water ballast (WAS: Catalina 250)
anony,
Everyone knows they are anti-flotation devices. Regards, Ron |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Catalina 250
Your the main boat basher. I just offered an opinion on some better alternatives in 25' boats. No, you didn't. Your post is below. It's bashing a boat you've never sailed. Great for camping. If you want to sail buy a Merit 25 or an Olson 25. The Catailina 250 is a fine boat for someone who's seeking greater comfort and a more forgiving platform for a family. You must also think Doug's boat was dumb as well. Why not challenge his comments about the 250? Problem is, Loco, you're a coward and a fool. Calling the Catalina a "camping" boat that can't sail only proves it. You're probably just upset that like me, the fellow will have a modern boat while you sail a dead design dinosaur. truth RB |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Catalina 250
the fellow will have a modern boat while you sail a dead design
dinosaur. I guess that's why we are first to cross the finish line so often. S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster" Trains are a winter sport |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Catalina 22 1985 sailboat yacht for sale | General | |||
Catalina 25' Maintenance Help | Boat Building | |||
Columbia 9.6 vs. Catalina 30 Need Buying Advice | Cruising | |||
Catalina 30 | Cruising | |||
FS: Catalina 22 Mark II | General |