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)

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.

Hi, Jeff, and Group,

I probably shouldn't continue with this, as my name is already mud, ya
know, but, just a couple of observations...

On Oct 27, 10:36 pm, jeff wrote:
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?

This is the first time I've ever been in, let alone cruised the
Chesapeake, and the only reason I was in it was to make the trip south
a bit more interesting for my 82 year old Mother-in-Law, who joined us
in NY on September 1. The ICW isn't my cup of tea.

Having said that, we've enjoyed where we've been so far, and, as those
who have been around long enough to have observed my style, anything
which has happened which didn't kill me is merely part of life's
fabric, and an adventure. So, I don't get very fussed about it, and
instead, provide target practice for those who are better than I, and,
sometimes, cautionary tales for those who haven't made my mistakes
yet.

My bad. Repetitively admitted. I'm unlikely to make the same mistake
twice, whatever it is.


'''



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. I was disputing the absolute certainty that the only way to find
out what the bottom was composed of was to do a Hinz-stick maneuver.
I don't agree with that as being sufficient information. I agree that
it's a quick and dirty (muddy?) way to get some debris from the top of
whatever you're over. I'm much more interested in what's underneath.


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.

Nor did I say that. I said I didn't see new (to me) information. As
someone else in this thread has observed, reading and application are
different things. Whether I knew something and applied all the
knowledge are not necessarily congruent.


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.

Nor did I say it was obsolete. However, to your point, and mine,
which related to rode, the state of the art has changed since the
edition I read. I was being taken to task for an inadequate
(inferred) rode; it's my opinion that the cordage and hooks today are
superior to that shown in the book I read as directed (assuming Bob
merely has a twitchy "t" finger and isn't trying to have me read
something else), and that what I have done to construct the several
rodes we have aboard is sufficient to the task at hand.




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.

Not a bad suggestion. And if you've bothered to read for content
rather than merely to find something to shoot at, you'd have seen that
I have done just that. However, having completed my assignment for
the day, I went back to entertaining my two lady companions.

For now, I'm considering whether I want to go out in nasty stuff (not
dangerous), flying down to Solomons, or take another day in Cambridge
and go to church, instead.


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)

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:38:41 -0000, Skip Gundlach
wrote:


For now, I'm considering whether I want to go out in nasty stuff (not
dangerous), flying down to Solomons, or take another day in Cambridge
and go to church, instead.


Go for the prayers! :-)

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:38:41 -0000, Skip Gundlach
wrote:

Hi, Jeff, and Group,

I probably shouldn't continue with this, as my name is already mud

Nope. Many here appreciate your journals, even the snipers.
Just the nature of usenet.
My compliments to you for your level-headedness in handling them,
among your other travails.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:38:41 -0000, Skip Gundlach
wrote:


Hi, Jeff, and Group,

I probably shouldn't continue with this, as my name is already mud


Nope. Many here appreciate your journals, even the snipers.
Just the nature of usenet.
My compliments to you for your level-headedness in handling them,
among your other travails.

--Vic

And for sharing your adventures with us.

Richard

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:15:17 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:38:41 -0000, Skip Gundlach
wrote:

Hi, Jeff, and Group,

I probably shouldn't continue with this, as my name is already mud

Nope. Many here appreciate your journals, even the snipers.
Just the nature of usenet.
My compliments to you for your level-headedness in handling them,
among your other travails.

--Vic

What he said.

Brian W

"Skip Gundlach" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Hi, Jeff, and Group,

I probably shouldn't continue with this, as my name is already mud, ya
know, but, just a couple of observations...

Not a bad suggestion. And if you've bothered to read for content
rather than merely to find something to shoot at, you'd have seen that
I have done just that. However, having completed my assignment for
the day, I went back to entertaining my two lady companions.

For now, I'm considering whether I want to go out in nasty stuff (not
dangerous), flying down to Solomons, or take another day in Cambridge
and go to church, instead.


Don't let 'em get to you Skip.
You're living the dream and having fun. If we all wanted a risk free life
we'd hardly step outside the house.

On Oct 27, 2:41 pm, Skip Gundlach wrote:
... 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. ...

Earl R Hinz is one of my heroes. He is an extraordinarily talented
writer and researcher and has produced the seminal books on cruising
in Oceania based on his own trailblazing travels. You may disagree
with him, and there are a few thoughts of his that I take issue with,
but he deserves more than an ordinary amount of respect. The last
edition of _The Complete Book of Anchoring and Mooring_ came out in
2001. I have an older edition and I don't know if the new one
mentions the newer anchors but even if it doesn't the fundamentals
haven't been changed by them. I've been using a Spade for a few years
now and it is a good anchor, but it is used in the same way as the
Delta from which it was evolved. Not that anyone can learn to anchor
by reading books alone, but the Hinz book on anchoring is worth a read
and his articles and books on Pacific cruising are very good, indeed.
Of course, I think Bob is being silly, but I hope that won't put you
off Hinz.

On a more or less unrelated topic, I use my GPS for anchor watch all
the time. I've got a Furuno GP-31 and it has a simple graphic page
that displays a "bread crumb" trail. I find that I can see where I
dropped the anchor on that screen and put a goto point there. The
anchor watch alarm is then set to go off if I go outside a circle
around that point. While we sit at anchor the gps continues drawing
the track on the screen and pretty soon a thick arc is drawn. This
makes it very easy to see if we are dragging even if it is pitch black
and raining as it so often is when a front passes by in the night...

-- Tom.