On Oct 27, 6:16 am, Brian Whatcott wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 06:47:01 -0000, Bob wrote:
Please supply the following data;

1) what is the weight of your boat?

2) How much DRAG (pull on your ground tackle) does your boat create
in the following winds

15 knots _________ pounds

30 knots _________ pounds

42 knots _________ pounds

60 knots_________ pounds
..
Bob


You must be joking? This is the sort of questionnaire
that an engineer might address. I will tell you for free, that the
rec.boats.cruising participation group is not largely comprised
of engineers.
You have this data for your boat, I expect.
Accurate to +- 5% I expect?

Brian Whatcott Altus OK
p.s. Drag is determined by a whole bunch more factors than
wind speed, dude.- Hide quoted text -



Hi Brian:

No Joke intended here. And in all sincerity I don't believe my
questions are beyond anyone that lingers here. Like I said, It aint
rocket science. The biggest problem I see here is a total lack of
ability/desire to learn................

There are those who say theyve anchored 400 times/year all over the
place and bla bla bla
or
its beyond our ability to learn cause we aint engineers.
or
Uhh, duhh I dont know... weve drug a few times without any problmes

So once a gain I will say that operating a boat does has a prereq
skill set.

You have this data for your boat, I expect.
Accurate to +- 5% I expect?

To answer your question Brian...... Yes I do have that info. Im not an
engineer, just a average joe who doesnt have enough money to risk my
home getting carried to the rocks. Ill tell ya a little secret.......
I read it in a book. A book an engineer wrote so I didnt have to do
the math. THere are some very smart people out there all willing to
help. So I read and take their advice. The BIGGEST problem with that
is any idiot can get $500 bucks for an article in Sailing or Cruising
World. The real challenge is which source to believe.

So as I said to Skip I will also say to you. Please read the text
titled:

"The Complete Book of Anchoring and Mooring", by Earl Hintz,
He has another titled " Sea Anchors and Drogues" Get that one too.

Once you read both then lets talk..................

PS, Agreed there are several factors, when put together, keep a boat
put..... dude.
But figured that was beyond Skips ability to understand at this
point.

On Oct 27, 5:57 am, Skip Gundlach wrote:
On Oct 27, 2:47 am, Bob wrote:


Hi, Bob, and group,

Answers to your questions:

1) Boat as built was 33K, but with all the stuff, I presume to be at
about 40K.

That works. Thank you.

2) I have not put a strain guage, not owning one, on my chain.

That is not necessary. IF you have read :

"The Complete Book of Anchoring and Mooring", by Earl Hintz,


The SWL on the shackles and swivels is well in excess of my chain,

This I do not belive......................... How can you get a
shackel pin that equals the BREAKING STRENGTH of chain tthrough the
5/16 chain link???

Try it. It dont work. That is unless........................


As to eye splices, we have only one on the bow,

MegaBraid, spliced properly.

According to who............. the Sampson Cordage Compny or the guy at
West marine???

There's not a better way to do it and
have it go through the gypsy,

And there is your problem right there Skip. Ease and comfort compared
to reliability and safety. You talk-talk-talk and make excuess but
never seem to seek accurate info. Maybe having it go through the gypsy
is not the ONLY/best way to do it.


so it's as good as it's going to get
without that side being all chain as well. New England Rope feels very
confident in that method of splice, so, as I can't prove them wrong,
it's what I did.

They sell the stuff to guys like you knowing you DEMAND the line to go
through a gypsy. Ever ask the England or Sampson people what the
strengh of that attachment creates???? My guess is 60% at best. But
ask the engeers at the company.


As to the supplementary anchoring gear, we have a Fortress 37, a
CQR45, and two smaller danforths, along with rode bags. Those have
the aforementioned MegaBraid and 3/8BBB as which came with the boat as
built, but only about 30', as to carry that in the dink would be
problematic for more. I have additional hundreds of feet of both 3/4
Megabraid and 5/8 threestrand aboard to extend the 300' standard on
all our rodes, whether all chain or part.


But yet you almost ended up on the rocks again........... WHY???



As to finding out exactly what kind of bottom I'm over, throwing a
small anchor overboard, setting it hard (and dragging, as would be
possible with a small one other than hooked terminally on some rock or
other obstruction), motoring over it and then pulling it up to inspect
what came up would be my favored one in waters other than conducive to
diving. As my current professor, however, I expect you'll correct me
as to the actual proper means.



No, I'll let that task to a more knowledgable person....

"The Complete Book of Anchoring and Mooring", by Earl Hintz,



I don't know the term "Choker Setter" - a clear deficiency
in my education which I will work diligently to remedy.

No need.



As to reading, I agree that the Hinz (Hintz?) book will be worth
acquiring - but I've not yet crossed its path.

For god sakes man. Just go to a book store and order it ! ! ! or go
on line and order it

Bob

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:59:39 -0400, Rosalie B.
wrote:

hpeer wrote:

As to a GPS anchor watch I note these two incidents:


Someone asked Skip if he kept an anchor watch. Normally once we are
anchored, the anchor watch is my responsibility. Probably because
once Bob is asleep, he's asleep. This is roughly what I do.

First, I have no experience in this, just reading.
If I were close to other boats in a tight anchorage, I probably
couldn't sleep except in ideal conditions without a watch.
No matter how anchor savvy I thought I was.
It seems that if Skip had a GPS alarm to would have avoided the 1/4
mile or so drift he just had.
There's been a bit here recently written on GPS alarms, and some swear
by it.
But here's what I was thinking I might try, and maybe some here have
thought of it or care to comment on it. No GPS dependency.
A fishing sinker, maybe take 6-8 ounces to sit on the bottom
withstanding tides.
Nice if it can be deployed when the anchor is set down, near the
anchor. But the anchor and rode can't foul it.
At the other end is a fishing rod, with reel drag set loose.
Once the line is out where swing won't unspool it further, a line from
an alarm - could be a windup - is attached to the rod line.
Might work. As I said, not for tight anchorages.
Biggest issue would be to set it up so the rode and anchor can't foul
the weight or fishing line keeping the alarm from sounding.
False alarms because of debris snagging the fishing line might happen,
but hey.
Another thought is a sharp stick/rod stuck in the mud just upwind
of the set anchor, and attach the fishing line end to that.
Shallow water, proper suitable muck only.
Won't work if the wind does a 180 and the anchor/rode fouls the stick.
Same problem not getting the weight/fish line fouled.
GPS might be the best, and what I'm talking about used as backup.
Or discarded out of hand.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:59:39 -0400, Rosalie B.
wrote:

hpeer wrote:

As to a GPS anchor watch I note these two incidents:

Someone asked Skip if he kept an anchor watch. Normally once we are
anchored, the anchor watch is my responsibility. Probably because
once Bob is asleep, he's asleep. This is roughly what I do.

First, I have no experience in this, just reading.
If I were close to other boats in a tight anchorage, I probably
couldn't sleep except in ideal conditions without a watch.
No matter how anchor savvy I thought I was.

In my younger days I slept so soundly I was terrified of sleeping
through a grounding. On more than one occasion I forced myself to stay
up for a late weather front or tide change. Now the "call of nature"
gets me up several times.

A telltale compass mounted above my bunk is handy if you suspect a shift.

It seems that if Skip had a GPS alarm to would have avoided the 1/4
mile or so drift he just had.
There's been a bit here recently written on GPS alarms, and some swear
by it.
But here's what I was thinking I might try, and maybe some here have
thought of it or care to comment on it. No GPS dependency.
A fishing sinker, maybe take 6-8 ounces to sit on the bottom
withstanding tides.

I used to have a small anchor attached to an old pot that would rattle
around on deck. But there were too many false positives - I decided it
was better to learn how to anchor securely.

Actually, my new GPS is accurate enough that I might start using its alarm.

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:16:29 -0700, Bob wrote:


2) How much DRAG (pull on your ground tackle) does your boat create
in the following winds
....
You must be joking? This is the sort of questionnaire
that an engineer might address.
....
Hi Brian:

No Joke intended here. And in all sincerity I don't believe my
questions are beyond anyone that lingers here.

Wow! An anwer in a tone so civil that its credibility
jumps 5 points immediately.
Thanks

Brian W

On Oct 27, 2:39 pm, Bob wrote:
2) I have not put a strain guage, not owning one, on my
chain.


That is not necessary. IF you have read :

"The Complete Book of Anchoring and Mooring", by Earl Hintz,

I wasn't able to find any author by that name. However, I have,
now, read a 21-year-old text by that name and which had Earl
Hinz, as I offered in my reply before, as the author. For someone
as picky as you seem to be about exactitude, I assumed you meant
what you wrote, not a careless error, repeated not once but twice
later. A simple glance at what I presume to be the book from
which you cribbed all the questions would have given you the
proper spelling of his name. Don't insult the author with a
misspelling. How'd you like to have your name be repeatedly
misspelled as Boob, even after correcting the misspeller??.


The SWL on the shackles and swivels is well in excess of my
chain,


This I do not belive......................... How can you get a
shackel pin that equals the BREAKING STRENGTH of chain tthrough
the
5/16 chain link???

Try it. It dont work. That is unless........................

Can't tell you that. I didn't do the design engineering and
testing on the products I bought. However, when a product has
both a label with the maker and whatever testing institute
specifying a SWL greater than my chain, I don't engage an
engineering firm to prove them wrong. Some things you have to
take on faith. How do *YOU* attach your chain?



As to eye splices, we have only one on the bow,
MegaBraid, spliced properly.


According to who............. the Sampson Cordage Compny or the
guy at
West marine???

According to New England Rope, the maker. Samson (there you go
again - it's not samPson) Rope (not Cordage Company)
(www.samsonrope.com - Samson Rope Technologies, Inc.) makes
interesting stuff, but I don't have any of it aboard. If you'd
like, I'll conduct a seminar on those splices. I'm reasonably
good at it. It ain't rocket science. Chain, eye, deadeye/end or
whatever you want to call it, it will look good and hold
magnificently. Their pdf DCR 448 Initial Release, publication
MISP87 will give you more information.

For further reading you may enjoy S9086-UU-STM-010/CH-613R3, revision
3 or higher, NAVAL SHIPS' TECHNICAL MANUAL, CHAPTER 613, WIRE AND
FIBER ROPE AND RIGGING, which addresses types of line (including wire)
and splicing strengths for various types of splices.


There's not a better way to do it and



have it go through the gypsy,


And there is your problem right there Skip. Ease and comfort
compared
to reliability and safety. You talk-talk-talk and make excuess
but
never seem to seek accurate info. Maybe having it go through
the gypsy
is not the ONLY/best way to do it.

I didn't say it was the only way. I said it was the only way to
have it go through the gypsy. I invite you to document (Hinz'
over-20-year-old stuff doesn't address the state of the art
today) a more effective way to make rope and chain continuous -
not with a honking big thimble or other stuff in the middle of
it. When I have all chain on the one which goes through the
gypsy, all the time, and only have said splice in a location
which would only see use in either extreme situations or very
deep locations on the secondary or tertiary or quartenary
applications said later two not using the windlass in any event,
I don't get fussed about it. Further, as you've pointed out,
chain doesn't have a very large aperture; putting a 3/4" line
through a thimble or other chafe resistant device is even more
difficult than finding some metal which will exceed the strength
of the chain when you put its pin through it.


so it's as good as it's going to get



without that side being all chain as well. New England Rope
feels very
confident in that method of splice, so, as I can't prove them
wrong,
it's what I did.


They sell the stuff to guys like you knowing you DEMAND the
line to go
through a gypsy. Ever ask the England or Sampson people what
the
strengh of that attachment creates???? My guess is 60% at best.
But
ask the engeers at the company.

See the above references...



As to the supplementary anchoring gear, we have a Fortress 37,
a
CQR45, and two smaller danforths, along with rode bags. Those
have
the aforementioned MegaBraid and 3/8BBB as which came with the
boat as
built, but only about 30', as to carry that in the dink would
be
problematic for more. I have additional hundreds of feet of
both 3/4
Megabraid and 5/8 threestrand aboard to extend the 300'
standard on
all our rodes, whether all chain or part.


But yet you almost ended up on the rocks again...........
WHY???

Well, apparently several reasons. None are particularly
important; I presume it to be that I misread a fouled anchor,
when, instead, it was a lousy mud bottom which had done me in on
the first pull. Not having sampled the bottom directly, but only
by apparent set, I didn't know the nature of it as being -
apparently, in hindsight - the same lousy stuff we abandoned on
the other side of the channel when we first started on our time
in Oxford, when we didn't set well, and I did, indeed, do the bottom
sample, albeit with a 55# Delta.

And there were no rocks in evidence nor anywhere in the vicinity as
far as I could determine. Mud is reasonably forgiving, if not very
good holding. It allows for a certain comfort level...

The second anchoring was quite sufficient, in any case, even for
the more severe wind conditions (yes, I know, severe is relative,
and the conditions of what I had were not severe by hurricane,
tropical cyclone or even storm [as varied from gale or half gale]
circumstance) which presented following our reanchoring.


As to finding out exactly what kind of bottom I'm over,
throwing a
small anchor overboard, setting it hard (and dragging, as
would be
possible with a small one other than hooked terminally on some
rock or
other obstruction), motoring over it and then pulling it up to
inspect
what came up would be my favored one in waters other than
conducive to
diving. As my current professor, however, I expect you'll
correct me
as to the actual proper means.



No, I'll let that task to a more knowledgable person....

"The Complete Book of Anchoring and Mooring", by Earl Hintz,

I can't find anything by him. However, in the book of the same name
by Hinz, the author suggests sampling only a very small portion of
only the surface. If you thought that duck consisted of a few inch
circle of feathers, you'd be missing a pretty good meal, but that's
what you'd get with his soap, grease or other sticky to pull up
something from the bottom. I'll take a core sample or at least a foot
or so of some other means, thanks. No, you're correct that I didn't
do that in my second anchoring location; had I, I might have anchored
differently. My bad. But then, again, I've never been shy about
admitting those, have I?




I don't know the term "Choker Setter" - a clear deficiency
in my education which I will work diligently to remedy.


No need.


As to reading, I agree that the Hinz (Hintz?) book will be
worth
acquiring - but I've not yet crossed its path.



For god sakes man. Just go to a book store and order it ! ! !
or go
on line and order it

Already read it. Well, already read what I presume you intended
me to read, not something by a nonexistent Hintz. Interesting
reading and I see that it's where you got all your questions.
Now that I know how to find the means to calculate, perhaps I'll
do that. Other than the minutiae of calculation, I didn't see
anything in the book which was new information to me; I did see lots
of old data/equipment and not the first word about third generation
anchors which are available today...

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going back to my movie.


Bob

L8R

Skip

Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery !
Follow us at http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog and/or
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog

"You are never given a wish without also being given the power
to make it come true. You may have to work for it however."
(and)
"There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in
its hands. You seek problems because you need their gifts."
(Richard Bach, in The Reluctant Messiah)

Bill Kearney wrote:
The point is that GPS SYSTEM, though phenomenally accurate MOST of the
time can fail SOME of the time.

More likely your unit wasn't picking up enough satellites. This is not the
fault of the GPS system. Some older units didn't do a very good job of
pickup up sats when there's overhead leaf canopy (some still don't). Don't
blame the system for inferior equipment.

An anchor watch in open water, without high terrain or foliage nearby, will
likely be very consistent in it's location.

If you are interested I took a picture of my plotter which I posted here.
http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/sho...os/browse/bd9e

Which is a useless link unless someone joins that group. Try using a free
service like flickr instead of forcing people to join (and presumably then
leave) a group.


You may well be correct that I was not picking up enough satellites.
Although in this particular case there was not much overhead canopy,
just a bunch of stunted (but dense) fir trees on either side.

As I recall the number of satellites varies, some times more, some times
fewer. And if the antenna does not have a clear view of the sky it may
be off. I believe it is also possible for a reflection to cause an
error, though probably not much of a problem unless you are in Miami.

Still I take your point, lack of signal was the likely cause.

Also, I said AIS when I meant to say WAAS - oops.

No intent to make you join a useless group.

Try http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b384/hpeer/ if interested.

I think that should work.

Howard

Skip Gundlach wrote in
oups.com:

[clip]


Yeah! Go Skip, go! :-)


-- Geoff
www.GeoffSchultz.org

Skip Gundlach wrote:
....
Well, apparently several reasons. None are particularly
important; I presume it to be that I misread a fouled anchor,
when, instead, it was a lousy mud bottom which had done me in on
the first pull. Not having sampled the bottom directly, but only
by apparent set, I didn't know the nature of it as being -
apparently, in hindsight - the same lousy stuff we abandoned on
the other side of the channel when we first started on our time
in Oxford, when we didn't set well, and I did, indeed, do the bottom
sample, albeit with a 55# Delta.

Duh! What a coincidence - soft mud in two different parts of the
Chesapeake! What are the odds of that?

'''

I can't find anything by him. However, in the book of the same name
by Hinz, the author suggests sampling only a very small portion of
only the surface. If you thought that duck consisted of a few inch
circle of feathers, you'd be missing a pretty good meal, but that's
what you'd get with his soap, grease or other sticky to pull up
something from the bottom. I'll take a core sample or at least a foot
or so of some other means, thanks.

Ah! Hinz is an incompetent bozo because he doesn't advise taking many
core samples to figure out there's mud in the Chesapeake.

No, you're correct that I didn't
do that in my second anchoring location; had I, I might have anchored
differently. My bad. But then, again, I've never been shy about
admitting those, have I?
For god sakes man. Just go to a book store and order it ! ! !
or go
on line and order it

Already read it. Well, already read what I presume you intended
me to read, not something by a nonexistent Hintz. Interesting
reading and I see that it's where you got all your questions.
Now that I know how to find the means to calculate, perhaps I'll
do that. Other than the minutiae of calculation, I didn't see
anything in the book which was new information to me;

Yes, it's clear you have the anchoring thing down pat now.

I did see lots
of old data/equipment and not the first word about third generation
anchors which are available today...

Skip, this has to rank amongst the dumbest things you've said here.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how these "third generation anchors"
have made Hinz's work obsolete.


Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going back to my movie.

The time would be better spent reading a good book on anchoring. I
suggest Hinz.

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:53:59 -0400, hpeer wrote:

A couple of days later I unintentionally left the GPS plugged into my
car overnight with the track turned on. The next morning I had a
"scatter plot" for my track covering a couple of hundred yards.

You need a better GPS. Seriously.