On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 06:43:07 -0600, Brian Whatcott
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:43:23 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

.... for anyone looking for the Manson,
http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/grou...on.asp#supreme


The Azure URL (above) notes:
"The Manson Supreme has been reviewed by Lloyds Register of Shipping
and has received a SHHP status. The first and only production boat
anchor in the world to do so."

Brian Whatcott Altus OK


Not to start an argument but where did you find that information?
...
Bruce-in-Bangkok

My note read like this, Bruce:
"The Azure URL (above) notes [ it ]"

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Yes, I saw that and posted a follow-up message that doesn't seem to
have appeared, as follows:

I have been looking for that kind of data all over the Net. Even
e-mailed Lloyd's but no answer.

(hit return too quickly)

I did look at the URL, above, and in one place it states that the
anchor has received Lloyd's certificate but in another place it says
that the test is being conducted.

First statement
The Manson Supreme has been reviewed by Lloyds Register of Shipping
and has received a SHHP status. The first and only production boat
anchor in the world to do so.

Second statement
The anchor is currently being surveyed by Lloyds Register of Shipping
and will be certified as a Super High Holding Power Anchor, the first
production anchor in the world to receive this status & certification.

Thus my question.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:displayed e-mail
address is a spam trap)

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:35:08 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:


The Azure URL (above) notes:
"The Manson Supreme has been reviewed by Lloyds Register of Shipping
and has received a SHHP status. The first and only production boat
anchor in the world to do so."

Brian Whatcott Altus OK
-
-
Not to start an argument but where did you find that information?
...
Bruce-in-Bangkok
-
My note read like this, Bruce:
"The Azure URL (above) notes [ it ]"

Brian Whatcott Altus OK
....

I did look at the URL, above, and in one place it states that the
anchor has received Lloyd's certificate but in another place it says
that the test is being conducted.

First statement
The Manson Supreme has been reviewed by Lloyds Register of Shipping
and has received a SHHP status. The first and only production boat
anchor in the world to do so.

Second statement
The anchor is currently being surveyed by Lloyds Register of Shipping
and will be certified as a Super High Holding Power Anchor, the first
production anchor in the world to receive this status & certification.

Thus my question.

Bruce-in-Bangkok

I have a private note in hand that appears to confirm the maker's
contention that The Mason Supreme is the only SHHP Lloyds-rated
device at present.

I also hear that the Rocna anchor in debate is made by sub-contract
suppliers, that vendor having no production capability in-house at
present. (not that this is particularly damning, I wouldn't think?).

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:35:08 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:


The Azure URL (above) notes:
"The Manson Supreme has been reviewed by Lloyds Register of Shipping
and has received a SHHP status. The first and only production boat
anchor in the world to do so."

Brian Whatcott Altus OK
-
-
Not to start an argument but where did you find that information?
...
Bruce-in-Bangkok
-
My note read like this, Bruce:
"The Azure URL (above) notes [ it ]"

Brian Whatcott Altus OK
...

I did look at the URL, above, and in one place it states that the
anchor has received Lloyd's certificate but in another place it says
that the test is being conducted.

First statement
The Manson Supreme has been reviewed by Lloyds Register of Shipping
and has received a SHHP status. The first and only production boat
anchor in the world to do so.

Second statement
The anchor is currently being surveyed by Lloyds Register of Shipping
and will be certified as a Super High Holding Power Anchor, the first
production anchor in the world to receive this status & certification.

Thus my question.

Bruce-in-Bangkok

I have a private note in hand that appears to confirm the maker's
contention that The Mason Supreme is the only SHHP Lloyds-rated
device at present.

I also hear that the Rocna anchor in debate is made by sub-contract
suppliers, that vendor having no production capability in-house at
present. (not that this is particularly damning, I wouldn't think?).

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Are the sub-contractors qualified to an approved quality assurance standard?
Do they have an approved inspection and test plan? Who does the quality
control during fabrication?
What method is used to inspect the welding and the purchased steel? It is
not uncommon to see burned through welds and treated steel that exceeds
hardness specifications (Rockwell or Vickers scale)

In article ,
wrote:

Are the sub-contractors qualified to an approved quality assurance standard?
Do they have an approved inspection and test plan? Who does the quality
control during fabrication?
What method is used to inspect the welding and the purchased steel? It is
not uncommon to see burned through welds and treated steel that exceeds
hardness specifications (Rockwell or Vickers scale)

Same questions for inhouse production.

Modern quality assurance does rely on producing quality, not testing it
in afterwards.

Anyway - just my thoughts (I have managed precision heavy machinery
fabrication and know have seen different setups - heavy QC and still
difficulties, qualified people with good results but less QC).
Some of the best products we had built were by subcontractors knowing
their business very well.
In doubt I favour welders who are used to producing high quality work,
wherever they are. And make sure they are well paid and proud of their
work.

Marc

PS: Testing of the anchors for mechanical stability can be done, but it
requires quite an effort (both machinery and money).

--
remove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail
http://www.heusser.com

"Marc Heusser" d wrote in
message ...
In article ,
wrote:

Are the sub-contractors qualified to an approved quality assurance
standard?
Do they have an approved inspection and test plan? Who does the quality
control during fabrication?
What method is used to inspect the welding and the purchased steel? It
is
not uncommon to see burned through welds and treated steel that exceeds
hardness specifications (Rockwell or Vickers scale)

Same questions for inhouse production.

Modern quality assurance does rely on producing quality, not testing it
in afterwards.

As you have stated Quality Assurance is intented for Manuals to follow.
Quality Control is the physical control of a product as the inspection and
test plan. Quality control of welding is something else. Surface cracks
are detected by using liquide penetrant or magnaflux. To measure the depth
of a crack or burned trought you need a destructive test.
X rays will not tell you exactly the magnetute of the welding defect. At
the end of the day no Quality Assurance and Control can replace the skill
and craftsmanship of the workers not mention a sound design, specifications
and selection of material.

Anyway - just my thoughts (I have managed precision heavy machinery
fabrication and know have seen different setups - heavy QC and still
difficulties, qualified people with good results but less QC).
Some of the best products we had built were by subcontractors knowing
their business very well.
In doubt I favour welders who are used to producing high quality work,
wherever they are. And make sure they are well paid and proud of their
work.

Marc

PS: Testing of the anchors for mechanical stability can be done, but it
requires quite an effort (both machinery and money).

--
remove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail
http://www.heusser.com

Bruce in Bangkok wrote in
:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 06:43:07 -0600, Brian Whatcott
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:43:23 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

.... for anyone looking for the Manson,
http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/grou...on.asp#supreme


The Azure URL (above) notes:
"The Manson Supreme has been reviewed by Lloyds Register of Shipping
and has received a SHHP status. The first and only production boat
anchor in the world to do so."

Brian Whatcott Altus OK


Not to start an argument but where did you find that information?
...
Bruce-in-Bangkok

My note read like this, Bruce:
"The Azure URL (above) notes [ it ]"

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Yes, I saw that and posted a follow-up message that doesn't seem to
have appeared, as follows:

I have been looking for that kind of data all over the Net. Even
e-mailed Lloyd's but no answer.

(hit return too quickly)

I did look at the URL, above, and in one place it states that the
anchor has received Lloyd's certificate but in another place it says
that the test is being conducted.

First statement
The Manson Supreme has been reviewed by Lloyds Register of Shipping
and has received a SHHP status. The first and only production boat
anchor in the world to do so.

Second statement
The anchor is currently being surveyed by Lloyds Register of Shipping
and will be certified as a Super High Holding Power Anchor, the first
production anchor in the world to receive this status & certification.

Thus my question.

Bruce-in-Bangkok

I find it interesting that I received an e-mail from Ned Wood, who works
for Manson Anchors, stating in part that:

"I have been watching the comments made about the Manson Supreme." and

"I would suggest not believing everything that the Rocna Salesman writes
online..." and

"Lastly, we never really want to get involved in the online mudslinging
that has become rife in these chat rooms...".

I certainly can appreciate the later comment, but it certainly would be
nice if they would answer some of the questions that people have. It
doesn't need to devolve into mud-slinging, but it would be nice to get
answers from someone who knows the product.

-- Geoff
www.GeoffSchultz.org

On 2007-11-06 09:04:01 -0500, Geoff Schultz said:

I find it interesting that I received an e-mail from Ned Wood, who works
for Manson Anchors, stating in part that:

"I have been watching the comments made about the Manson Supreme." and

"I would suggest not believing everything that the Rocna Salesman writes
online..." and

"Lastly, we never really want to get involved in the online mudslinging
that has become rife in these chat rooms...".

I certainly can appreciate the later comment, but it certainly would be
nice if they would answer some of the questions that people have. It
doesn't need to devolve into mud-slinging, but it would be nice to get
answers from someone who knows the product.

Obviously, he doesn't know RBC very well, nor this thread, as there has
not been *any* "mudslinging" (yet), just honest debate.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:2007110620345850073-jerelull@maccom...

Obviously, he doesn't know RBC very well, nor this thread, as there has
not been *any* "mudslinging" (yet), just honest debate.
--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

Some of the worst stuff occured on Wikipedia, 'anchors' entry. The history
can be seen on the the 'notes' pages. The accusations were that 'badmonkey'
aka Craig, of Rocna, hijacked the entry to promote his anchor, using
selective quotes and graphs. Sad when that happens.

--
JimB
Google 'jimb sail' or go www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com
Compares Cruise areas of Europe

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:27:01 -0000, "JimB" wrote:

Some of the worst stuff occured on Wikipedia, 'anchors' entry. The history
can be seen on the the 'notes' pages. The accusations were that 'badmonkey'
aka Craig, of Rocna, hijacked the entry to promote his anchor, using
selective quotes and graphs. Sad when that happens.

Yes, good as the Rocna may (or may not) be, that speaks poorly for the
company. The Manson is also less expensive if memory serves.

In article ,
Wayne.B wrote:

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:27:01 -0000, "JimB" wrote:

Some of the worst stuff occured on Wikipedia, 'anchors' entry. The history
can be seen on the the 'notes' pages. The accusations were that 'badmonkey'
aka Craig, of Rocna, hijacked the entry to promote his anchor, using
selective quotes and graphs. Sad when that happens.

Yes, good as the Rocna may (or may not) be, that speaks poorly for the
company. The Manson is also less expensive if memory serves.

Perhaps it is easy to cut costs by stealing other's designs and avoiding
the need for R&D.

h

--
To respond, obviously drop the "nospan"?