|
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
Log Entry: 1854 March 1 On the this day the Lightning sailed 436 miles, which is the longest day's run recorded by a sailing ship. March 1. — Wind S., strong gales; bore away for the North Channel, carried away the foretopsail and lost jib; hove the log several times, and found the ship going through the water at the rate of 18 to 18½ knots per hour; lee rail under water, and the rigging slack; saw the Irish land at 9:30 p.m. Distance run in the twenty-four hours, 436 miles. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
Log Entry: 1854 March 1 On the this day the Lightning sailed 436 miles, which is the longest day's run recorded by a sailing ship. March 1. --- Wind S., strong gales; bore away for the North Channel, carried away the foretopsail and lost jib; hove the log several times, and found the ship going through the water at the rate of 18 to 18½ knots per hour; lee rail under water, and the rigging slack; saw the Irish land at 9:30 p.m. Distance run in the twenty-four hours, 436 miles. Oh yes he would - he would pedantically correct the "knots per hour", calling it ''lubberly' and the author a 'girly-man'. |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:29:55 +0100, BrianH wrote:
Oh yes he would - he would pedantically correct the "knots per hour", calling it ''lubberly' and the author a 'girly-man'. Oddly enough, knots per hour _would_ describe skill in hand tied rug making. I have one with 400 knots per sq inch. Child labor I am sure. Came from India although they make them in other places, Iran... I think of those little kids with the fast fingers every time I hear a talking head refer to' knots per hour.' Casady |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
"BrianH" wrote in message ... Bruce in Bangkok wrote: Log Entry: 1854 March 1 On the this day the Lightning sailed 436 miles, which is the longest day's run recorded by a sailing ship. March 1. --- Wind S., strong gales; bore away for the North Channel, carried away the foretopsail and lost jib; hove the log several times, and found the ship going through the water at the rate of 18 to 18½ knots per hour; lee rail under water, and the rigging slack; saw the Irish land at 9:30 p.m. Distance run in the twenty-four hours, 436 miles. Oh yes he would - he would pedantically correct the "knots per hour", calling it ''lubberly' and the author a 'girly-man'. Not to mention the fact he "bore away" which indicates he was running so how come there is a lee rail underwater? Sounds like fanciful thinking to me. Another armchair sailor? It's the type of tall tale wannabes like Bruce seem to find believable. Wilbur Hubbard |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
On 2007-12-05 15:21:11 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said: Not to mention the fact he "bore away" which indicates he was running so how come there is a lee rail underwater? You can bear away from a reach, too..... Even square riggers could reach. -- 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/ |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:21:11 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "BrianH" wrote in message h... Bruce in Bangkok wrote: Log Entry: 1854 March 1 On the this day the Lightning sailed 436 miles, which is the longest day's run recorded by a sailing ship. March 1. --- Wind S., strong gales; bore away for the North Channel, carried away the foretopsail and lost jib; hove the log several times, and found the ship going through the water at the rate of 18 to 18½ knots per hour; lee rail under water, and the rigging slack; saw the Irish land at 9:30 p.m. Distance run in the twenty-four hours, 436 miles. Oh yes he would - he would pedantically correct the "knots per hour", calling it ''lubberly' and the author a 'girly-man'. Not to mention the fact he "bore away" which indicates he was running so how come there is a lee rail underwater? Sounds like fanciful thinking to me. Another armchair sailor? It's the type of tall tale wannabes like Bruce seem to find believable. Wilbur Hubbard Given that this is an extract from the log of the clipper ship "Lightning" it is difficult to understand why you state "Sounds like fanciful thinking to me." A square rigged ship, to be making 18 knots, would have been sailing with the wind so obviously the wind was coming from the back of the boat (I'm using simple terms so you will understand) and if the lee (that is the side of the ship the wind is not coming from) rail was under, from the rear quarter. He "bore away for", he turned toward, the N. Channel. Your knowledge of sailing is sadly lacking. In fact Will-boy, your ignorance is awesome! Since the "Lightning" was one of, if not the, fastest of the clipper ships her voyages are documented very well. Why, even someone totally innocent of sailing knowledge could probably discover her history by typing "ship" and "lightning" into google. As for "wannabes like Bruce", I keep telling you, I got here. Tell us where have you been? Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:29:55 +0100, BrianH wrote:
Bruce in Bangkok wrote: Log Entry: 1854 March 1 On the this day the Lightning sailed 436 miles, which is the longest day's run recorded by a sailing ship. March 1. --- Wind S., strong gales; bore away for the North Channel, carried away the foretopsail and lost jib; hove the log several times, and found the ship going through the water at the rate of 18 to 18½ knots per hour; lee rail under water, and the rigging slack; saw the Irish land at 9:30 p.m. Distance run in the twenty-four hours, 436 miles. Oh yes he would - he would pedantically correct the "knots per hour", calling it ''lubberly' and the author a 'girly-man'. I'm not sure what the common shipboard use of "knots" would have been in 1854. I know that the log was cast the report made would have been "X" knots and "Y" feet, or fathoms, so possibly it would have been common to talk of knots per hour. I'm fairly sure that the Captain knew what it meant though. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:29:55 +0100, BrianH wrote: Bruce in Bangkok wrote: Log Entry: 1854 March 1 On the this day the Lightning sailed 436 miles, which is the longest day's run recorded by a sailing ship. March 1. --- Wind S., strong gales; bore away for the North Channel, carried away the foretopsail and lost jib; hove the log several times, and found the ship going through the water at the rate of 18 to 18½ knots per hour; lee rail under water, and the rigging slack; saw the Irish land at 9:30 p.m. Distance run in the twenty-four hours, 436 miles. Oh yes he would - he would pedantically correct the "knots per hour", calling it ''lubberly' and the author a 'girly-man'. I'm not sure what the common shipboard use of "knots" would have been in 1854. I know that the log was cast the report made would have been "X" knots and "Y" feet, or fathoms, so possibly it would have been common to talk of knots per hour. I'm fairly sure that the Captain knew what it meant though. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) Bruce? I usually enjoy reading your stuff. I often learn something as well as being entertained. But... Making fun of retarded kids isn't interesting, entertaining, or nice. Just ignore him? Please? Respectfully, Richard |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:57:26 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:
On 2007-12-05 15:21:11 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: Not to mention the fact he "bore away" which indicates he was running so how come there is a lee rail underwater? You can bear away from a reach, too..... Even square riggers could reach. From what I've read they *might* get 45 degrees off the wind but even then it was slow going. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:05:05 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote: Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:29:55 +0100, BrianH wrote: Bruce in Bangkok wrote: Log Entry: 1854 March 1 On the this day the Lightning sailed 436 miles, which is the longest day's run recorded by a sailing ship. March 1. --- Wind S., strong gales; bore away for the North Channel, carried away the foretopsail and lost jib; hove the log several times, and found the ship going through the water at the rate of 18 to 18½ knots per hour; lee rail under water, and the rigging slack; saw the Irish land at 9:30 p.m. Distance run in the twenty-four hours, 436 miles. Oh yes he would - he would pedantically correct the "knots per hour", calling it ''lubberly' and the author a 'girly-man'. I'm not sure what the common shipboard use of "knots" would have been in 1854. I know that the log was cast the report made would have been "X" knots and "Y" feet, or fathoms, so possibly it would have been common to talk of knots per hour. I'm fairly sure that the Captain knew what it meant though. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) Bruce? I usually enjoy reading your stuff. I often learn something as well as being entertained. But... Making fun of retarded kids isn't interesting, entertaining, or nice. Just ignore him? Please? Respectfully, Richard I really do try and about the time I think I've overcome my addiction to shooting him down here he comes again with another blooper and my good resolve flies out the window. But he did post a very rational message about bottom paint that I answered in kind so maybe I'll cold turkey it this time. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:05:05 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote: Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:29:55 +0100, BrianH wrote: Bruce in Bangkok wrote: Log Entry: 1854 March 1 On the this day the Lightning sailed 436 miles, which is the longest day's run recorded by a sailing ship. March 1. --- Wind S., strong gales; bore away for the North Channel, carried away the foretopsail and lost jib; hove the log several times, and found the ship going through the water at the rate of 18 to 18½ knots per hour; lee rail under water, and the rigging slack; saw the Irish land at 9:30 p.m. Distance run in the twenty-four hours, 436 miles. Oh yes he would - he would pedantically correct the "knots per hour", calling it ''lubberly' and the author a 'girly-man'. I'm not sure what the common shipboard use of "knots" would have been in 1854. I know that the log was cast the report made would have been "X" knots and "Y" feet, or fathoms, so possibly it would have been common to talk of knots per hour. I'm fairly sure that the Captain knew what it meant though. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) Bruce? I usually enjoy reading your stuff. I often learn something as well as being entertained. But... Making fun of retarded kids isn't interesting, entertaining, or nice. Just ignore him? Please? Respectfully, Richard I really do try and about the time I think I've overcome my addiction to shooting him down here he comes again with another blooper and my good resolve flies out the window. But he did post a very rational message about bottom paint that I answered in kind so maybe I'll cold turkey it this time. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) Good Man! I know it's hard. Heck, I quit smoking six months ago and there is not a day goes by that I doen't want to light one up. But, temptation resisted is the true sign of character. Stiff upper lip and all that rot? :) Richard |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
I was wondering about that, too. My first impression was that someone must be impersonating him. Maybe Tomcat Wentworth Cannondale? He sometimes is coherent, and asks all his practical questions under fake names. :) But he did post a very rational message about bottom paint ... Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message ... Bruce, please stop answering any and all posts by Wilbur Hubbard. I'm an insecure, little fraidy cat and the things Wilbur writes often get my goat because the things he says make me think I'm not as infallible as I fancy myself to be. Therefore, I have a twinge or two of guilt because I hide instead of allowing thoughts that make me uncomfortable to be given even an iota of consideration. I like being ignorant. I like the comfort of MY thoughts undisturbed by any outside influence. I derive even more comfort if I can surround myself with similar closed-minded people. So, join me, Bruce, in my comfortable ignorance. Richard Hmmmmmmmm! Wilbur Hubbard |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:28:01 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote: I'm not sure what the common shipboard use of "knots" would have been in 1854. I know that the log was cast the report made would have been "X" knots and "Y" feet, or fathoms, so possibly it would have been common to talk of knots per hour. I'm fairly sure that the Captain knew what it meant though. Bruce-in-Bangkok Hmmm..the chip log had knots at 47 ft 3.5 inch intervals, so when the chip was cast, the knots were counted while the 28 second glass ran. The speed was reported as (the count of) knots. Brian Whatcott Altus OK |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:47:06 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote: Much snipped Good Man! I know it's hard. Heck, I quit smoking six months ago and there is not a day goes by that I doen't want to light one up. But, temptation resisted is the true sign of character. Stiff upper lip and all that rot? :) Richard I quit smoking about 20 years ago and for probably 10 years after I quit I still felt the urge every once in a while to light up. But like sex, the urge will diminish as the years go by. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:42:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote: I was wondering about that, too. My first impression was that someone must be impersonating him. Maybe Tomcat Wentworth Cannondale? He sometimes is coherent, and asks all his practical questions under fake names. :) But he did post a very rational message about bottom paint ... Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) Well, his stories hang together, as he mentioned in a post some time ago about still using TBT bottom paint and then his recent more detailed post. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:47:06 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote: Much snipped Good Man! I know it's hard. Heck, I quit smoking six months ago and there is not a day goes by that I doen't want to light one up. But, temptation resisted is the true sign of character. Stiff upper lip and all that rot? :) Richard I quit smoking about 20 years ago and for probably 10 years after I quit I still felt the urge every once in a while to light up. But like sex, the urge will diminish as the years go by. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) Uhm, thanks, I think? No, actually that's real depressing... :( Richard |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:29:54 -0600, Brian Whatcott
wrote: On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:28:01 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: I'm not sure what the common shipboard use of "knots" would have been in 1854. I know that the log was cast the report made would have been "X" knots and "Y" feet, or fathoms, so possibly it would have been common to talk of knots per hour. I'm fairly sure that the Captain knew what it meant though. Bruce-in-Bangkok Hmmm..the chip log had knots at 47 ft 3.5 inch intervals, so when the chip was cast, the knots were counted while the 28 second glass ran. The speed was reported as (the count of) knots. Brian Whatcott Altus OK No, the report would be made as "X" knots and "Y" feet, or fathoms, unless when the guy pinched the line it was very close to a knot. If you read some of the sailing ship logs you often read mention that the ship was doing, for example, 10-1/2 knots, or some other fraction of a knot. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:47:06 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote: Much snipped Good Man! I know it's hard. Heck, I quit smoking six months ago and there is not a day goes by that I doen't want to light one up. But, temptation resisted is the true sign of character. Stiff upper lip and all that rot? :) Richard I quit smoking about 20 years ago and for probably 10 years after I quit I still felt the urge every once in a while to light up. But like sex, the urge will diminish as the years go by. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) Wilbur? You can't possibly let that slip by! G |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
On 2007-12-06 06:07:42 -0500, Bruce in Bangkok said:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:57:26 GMT, Jere Lull wrote: On 2007-12-05 15:21:11 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard" said: Not to mention the fact he "bore away" which indicates he was running so how come there is a lee rail underwater? You can bear away from a reach, too..... Even square riggers could reach. From what I've read they *might* get 45 degrees off the wind but even then it was slow going. Not sure they could get above about 60 without fore-aft sails, but even with square riggers, the fastest point of sail is a beam reach, 90 degrees, so it's possible to bury the lee rail while screaming along. -- 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/ |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 04:24:11 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:
Not sure they could get above about 60 without fore-aft sails, but even with square riggers, the fastest point of sail is a beam reach, 90 degrees, so it's possible to bury the lee rail while screaming along. Thing about burying the rail is that it does bad things for stability. You never hear much about square riggers getting blown all the way over. Of course, who would be left to tell the tale? Casady |
Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com