|
A couple of newbie questions
Welcome back Jax.
Are you sure he didn't just call you an asshole because you are one? I mean how do we know how much linkage to sine functions is really involved? -W "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... btw, Bob Perry publicaly called me "an asshole" (his words, several times) for pointing out that a sine function does not EXPLODE at zero degrees (in fact it does nothing at all at zero degrees), which of course means that tens of millions of people across the country are -- by Bob's definition -- "assholes" for knowing from sine functions. |
A couple of newbie questions
Welcome back Jax.
We are looking forward your enlightening explanation of how to calculate hull power requirements. Mark Browne top posting corrected "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... try Dave Gerr, for power required. He makes some dumb comments regarding theory but his formulae are "close enough" to be more than useful for specific power needed for specific speeds for "displacement" type boats. Double check with your propeller vendor, and LISTEN to them, for they have some views that don't necessarily map one to one with DG's thoughts. btw, Bob Perry publicalycalled me "an asshole" (his words, several times) for pointing out that a sine function does not EXPLODE at zero degrees (in fact it does nothing at all at zero degrees), which of course means that tens of millions of people across the country are -- by Bob's definition -- "assholes" for knowing from sine functions. I did a little digging on the US navy training sites, as related to ship design and propulsion. I saw a fair amount on traverse wave systems, with analysis on wave-making resistance as affected by beam to length ratio, displacement, shape of hull, Froude number (ship length & speed), skin resistance, laminar flow, and interaction between the drive system and the hull. Most of it was fairly simple and easy to follow. It would seem that the traverse wave system is the key to understanding "hull speed". The traverse waves travel at approximately the same speed as the ship - At slow speeds, several crests exist along the ship length because the wave lengths are smaller than the ship length - As the ship increases speed, the length of the transverse wave increases - As the wave length approaches the ship length, the wave making resistance increases very rapidly - When the transverse wave length equals the ship's length the vessel has reached its HULL SPEED It takes energy to produce waves, and as speed increases, the energy required is a square function of velocity! (Wave making resistance drastically increases above hull speed) Here are my source links. http://www.usna.edu/NAOE/courses/en2...efficients.ppt http://www.usna.edu/NAOE/courses/en2...es/chap7_a.ppt http://web.usna.navy.mil/~phmiller/en200/Chapter7.ppt http://www.gidb.itu.edu.tr/staff/emi...cteristics.pdf Some of these are long links - you may have to cut-n-paste to follow them. The files are in PowerPoint or PDF format. Most Military training material comes this way - sorry if you have trouble reading it. If you are on a Microsoft platform you can download free viewers (Search for viewer) from Microsoft at: http://office.microsoft.com/ Jax, Help me out here; I seem to have missed the sine function thing. Would you please elaborate? Perhaps just a link to it and I will read up on it myself? Mark Browne |
A couple of newbie questions
"JAXAshby" wrote in message ... btw, Bob Perry publicaly called me "an asshole" (his words, several times) =============================================== Bob is a very perceptive guy. |
A couple of newbie questions
snickers softly
-W "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... btw, Bob Perry publicaly called me "an asshole" (his words, several times) =============================================== Bob is a very perceptive guy. |
A couple of newbie questions
"Mark Browne" wrote in message news:xcEOb.80651$sv6.188571@attbi_s52... snip The concepts being wrestled with here are "precision" and "accuracy". Precision implies repeatable results to some number of decimal places plus or minus an uncertainty factor. That is true. Accuracy implies the correct answer in absolute terms. Accuracy is related to how good (accurate) the data set is. For example, "accurate within 3 meters" is not an absolute - it could be dead on, or three meters off. Now if the phrase stated "accurate to within 2.987654321 =/- .0000000001 meters" - that is precise - you will always know that you will be within 2.987654321 +/- .0000000001 meters of any mark rather than somewhere within the accuracy range of 0 to 3 meters. snip I work with precision measuring devices and find that these are slippery concepts for most people. The shoddy day-to-day usage and close relationship between the two words does not make things any easier. See: http://www.ieee-uffc.org/freqcontrol...g/vigaccur.htm for a nice intuitive explanation of the difference between accuracy and precision. Mark Browne Really bad when I make the mistake on an explanation posting. Used to teach Digital Signal Processing and programming for Texas Instrument fixpoint DSP's. Bill |
A couple of newbie questions
"Joe Parsons" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:20:54 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: "Joe Parsons" wrote in message .. . [HAIRSPLITTING=ON] On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:57:18 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: A nautical mile is also, precisely, 6,076.12 feet. That's not precise--that's rounded to two decimals. A nautical mile is, by definition, precisely 1,852 meters, as mentioned above. That converts to 6,076.11549 feet (which still is not precise!). [HAIRSPLITTING=OFF] I look at it this way - if I can get within four feet of something, I can holler at it. :) Now THAT is practical navigation! Joe Parsons Difference between an engineer and a mathematician. Voluptuous Dallas Cheer leader is standing nekid on the goal line. The engineer and math nerd are on the other line. Told that the first one to her gets her. Only restriction is can move only 1/2 the distance to the goal in any one move. Math nerd says 'won't even start, is an infinite series and will never get there.'. Engineer is moving and states, 7 moves and I am close enough for any thing I want to do. Joe, you a math minor in a business major? Bill Neither. I'm a writer. :) Another Harry ;) actually the moves thrown into Xcel for calculation 1 -150 2 -75 3 -37.5 4 -18.75 5 -9.375 6 -4.6875 7 -2.34375 John Holmes maybe, or Long Dong silver for the Clarence Thomas group 8 -1.171875 9 -0.5859375 10 -0.29296875 |
A couple of newbie questions
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:58:41 GMT, "Mark Browne"
wrote: snip The concepts being wrestled with here are "precision" and "accuracy". Precision implies repeatable results to some number of decimal places plus or minus an uncertainty factor. That is true. Accuracy implies the correct answer in absolute terms. Accuracy is related to how good (accurate) the data set is. For example, "accurate within 3 meters" is not an absolute - it could be dead on, or three meters off. Now if the phrase stated "accurate to within 2.987654321 =/- .0000000001 meters" - that is precise - you will always know that you will be within 2.987654321 +/- .0000000001 meters of any mark rather than somewhere within the accuracy range of 0 to 3 meters. snip I work with precision measuring devices and find that these are slippery concepts for most people. The shoddy day-to-day usage and close relationship between the two words does not make things any easier. See: http://www.ieee-uffc.org/freqcontrol...g/vigaccur.htm for a nice intuitive explanation of the difference between accuracy and precision. That was interesting - I was going to use rifle accuracy as an example. Actually, I was bored stiff yesterday and wanted to play with the concept a little. Oh well - back to the grind. :) It's tough being retired. Later, Tom S. Woodstock, CT ---------- "My rod and my reel - they comfort me." St. Pete, 12 Lb. Test |
A couple of newbie questions
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 06:07:05 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote: [snip] Joe, you a math minor in a business major? Bill Neither. I'm a writer. :) Another Harry ;) I didn't miss your smiley (however ironic it might be), but I do have to make a couple of observations about your comment: First, that it is an example of a logical fallacy called "hasty generalization." It goes like this: Harry is an often flagrantly rude participant who espouses a predominately "liberal" political position; Harry describes himself as a writer; Joe describes himself as a writer; THEREFORE Joe and Harry are the same. The reason I mention this, apart from my fondness for identifying sloppy thinking, is that Mr. Krause is (IMO) one of the more unpleasant and disruptive participants in rec.boats. I find any attempt to tie me to anyone behaving as he does to be, frankly, insulting. Besides: you have no idea what (if any) political persuasions I might hold. Joe Parsons |
A couple of newbie questions
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:18:56 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
Joe Parsons wrote: On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 06:07:05 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: [snip] Joe, you a math minor in a business major? Bill Neither. I'm a writer. :) Another Harry ;) I didn't miss your smiley (however ironic it might be), but I do have to make a couple of observations about your comment: First, that it is an example of a logical fallacy called "hasty generalization." It goes like this: Harry is an often flagrantly rude participant who espouses a predominately "liberal" political position; Harry describes himself as a writer; Joe describes himself as a writer; THEREFORE Joe and Harry are the same. The reason I mention this, apart from my fondness for identifying sloppy thinking, is that Mr. Krause is (IMO) one of the more unpleasant and disruptive participants in rec.boats. I find any attempt to tie me to anyone behaving as he does to be, frankly, insulting. Besides: you have no idea what (if any) political persuasions I might hold. Joe Parsons What a nice welcome back after my roadtrip (well, planetrip and roadtrip) to an even more frigid part of the country! So, Joe, are you "this" Joe Parsons: Subject: 11) Who is Joe Parsons, anyway?? From: Chris LIEthiser nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Let me see if I have this straight: you search the Usenet archives on Google and find something an individual who cowers behind myriad sockpuppets and 'nyms wrote about me. Evidently, you are content to accept that screed of personal attacks from that anonymous person as being somehow factual. (continued, below) Date: 7/31/03 4:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: p2ajivgaef9kng3kqrq7agn76mign099p8@[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11) Who is Joe Parsons, anyway?? Joe Parsons is a writer living in the San Francisco Bay area. As of this writing, he is producing erotic audio dramas for release near the end of the year (1994). Since as a writer he is just one step away from being unemployed, he spends a lot of time sailing "Good Faith" out of Berkeley, California. There's a sleezebag goes by the name of Joe Parsons trolling ASAD, a mental health support group for those with neurological differences causing them deficits of attention, who writes and posts a ton of propaganda to ASAD depicting persons with deficits of attention as pathetic, disturbed, disabled losers, needing heavy duty drugging, research shows doesn't help them perform any better, only makes them more complaint and pliable for the psychopathic owners of businesses in the flourishing sex industry recruiting those all drugged up owing to damage done them by people believe horse manure people like Parsons manufactures. Is the Joe Parsons producing the porn, one and the same Joe Parsons writing and posting the ton of propaganda to the attention deficit NG, depicting those with deficits of attention as pathetic, disturbed, worthless losers in need of drugging up, harmful to them, but making them more compliant and pliable for exploitation by psychopaths and porn producers? ------------------------ Or would you be some other unctuous rectal fissure who goes by the name of Joe Parsons? You know, the kind of fellow Ian Maclaren wrote about in Kate Carnegie: "A certain class of smug, self-contented, unctuous men." You know, In the years I have been involved in rec.boats I have taken pains to be courteous and respectful to others. It's true that, being human, I can be provoked, but those instances--even in the increasingly nasty environment of rec.boats--are rare. It's also true that I tend to point out logical flaws in arguments--call it a hobby--but I generally try to do so in a way that is constructive and polite. You, on the other hand, politics aside, are, as I described you, typically a "flagrantly rude participant" in rec.boats. Anyone who has read this newsgroup beyond a couple of days and has seen your posts would have to concur. Even many of who espouse views similar to yours will agree with that assessment. I find it ironic that you have no idea what (if any) political views I might have; for all you know, I could be to the left of Fidel Castro. Personally, I think your conduct here is an embarrassment to anyone who holds views similar to yours. I think your relentlessly hostile and belligerent behavior here may well drive people *away* from your way of thinking. It's a cowardly argument as well, Mr. Krause: where I characterize you (accurately, I think) as being "flagrantly rude" here, you search the archives for accusations and personal smears against me, then post that screed from an arguably disturbed person as though it had some scintilla of truth. But you know what? Anyone reading your mean-spirited response is likely to see it for what it is: the impotent mumbling of a deeply unhappy and angry man who, lacking an argument, lashes out at anyone within reach--but bloodies and soils himself in the process. I hope a time comes when you can find some measure of peace for yourself. Joe Parsons |
A couple of newbie questions
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:06:18 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote: On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 06:07:05 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: [snip] Joe, you a math minor in a business major? Bill Neither. I'm a writer. :) Another Harry ;) I didn't miss your smiley (however ironic it might be), but I do have to make a couple of observations about your comment: First, that it is an example of a logical fallacy called "hasty generalization." It goes like this: Harry is an often flagrantly rude participant who espouses a predominately "liberal" political position; Harry describes himself as a writer; Joe describes himself as a writer; THEREFORE Joe and Harry are the same. The reason I mention this, apart from my fondness for identifying sloppy thinking, is that Mr. Krause is (IMO) one of the more unpleasant and disruptive participants in rec.boats. I find any attempt to tie me to anyone behaving as he does to be, frankly, insulting. Besides: you have no idea what (if any) political persuasions I might hold. Joe Parsons Besides, Joe's presence, just as Harry's absence, is most enjoyable! John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
A couple of newbie questions
"Joe Parsons" wrote in message ... On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 06:07:05 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: [snip] Joe, you a math minor in a business major? Bill Neither. I'm a writer. :) Another Harry ;) I didn't miss your smiley (however ironic it might be), but I do have to make a couple of observations about your comment: First, that it is an example of a logical fallacy called "hasty generalization." It goes like this: Harry is an often flagrantly rude participant who espouses a predominately "liberal" political position; Harry describes himself as a writer; Joe describes himself as a writer; THEREFORE Joe and Harry are the same. The reason I mention this, apart from my fondness for identifying sloppy thinking, is that Mr. Krause is (IMO) one of the more unpleasant and disruptive participants in rec.boats. I find any attempt to tie me to anyone behaving as he does to be, frankly, insulting. Besides: you have no idea what (if any) political persuasions I might hold. Joe Parsons Should have put a more smily faces. No, Joe, you are not in the same unclass as Harry. You are a civil, reasoning person. Actually was going to email you about having a couple of brews when my wife's ladies group met coupled of Thursdays ago. Unfortunately got a bad cold. Bill |
A couple of newbie questions
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:24:08 -0500, John H wrote:
[snip] The reason I mention this, apart from my fondness for identifying sloppy thinking, is that Mr. Krause is (IMO) one of the more unpleasant and disruptive participants in rec.boats. I find any attempt to tie me to anyone behaving as he does to be, frankly, insulting. Besides: you have no idea what (if any) political persuasions I might hold. Joe Parsons Besides, Joe's presence, just as Harry's absence, is most enjoyable! *blush* T'anks! |
A couple of newbie questions
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:26:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote: [snip] THEREFORE Joe and Harry are the same. The reason I mention this, apart from my fondness for identifying sloppy thinking, is that Mr. Krause is (IMO) one of the more unpleasant and disruptive participants in rec.boats. I find any attempt to tie me to anyone behaving as he does to be, frankly, insulting. Besides: you have no idea what (if any) political persuasions I might hold. Joe Parsons Should have put a more smily faces. No, Joe, you are not in the same unclass as Harry. You are a civil, reasoning person. (finding my Happy Place now...) I know that, Bill. Actually was going to email you about having a couple of brews when my wife's ladies group met coupled of Thursdays ago. Unfortunately got a bad cold. I've heard that an excess of estrogen in the air can do that to you! Give me a holler some time--joe (at) yankeemedia (dot) net--and let's get together! Joe Parsons |
A couple of newbie questions
"Joe Parsons" wrote in message ... On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:26:38 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: [snip] THEREFORE Joe and Harry are the same. The reason I mention this, apart from my fondness for identifying sloppy thinking, is that Mr. Krause is (IMO) one of the more unpleasant and disruptive participants in rec.boats. I find any attempt to tie me to anyone behaving as he does to be, frankly, insulting. Besides: you have no idea what (if any) political persuasions I might hold. Joe Parsons Should have put a more smily faces. No, Joe, you are not in the same unclass as Harry. You are a civil, reasoning person. (finding my Happy Place now...) I know that, Bill. Actually was going to email you about having a couple of brews when my wife's ladies group met coupled of Thursdays ago. Unfortunately got a bad cold. I've heard that an excess of estrogen in the air can do that to you! Give me a holler some time--joe (at) yankeemedia (dot) net--and let's get together! Joe Parsons One of my reason for owning a couple of floating things. Has always been an excess of estrogen in my household. 2 daughters, wife, 2 female cats. Probably the goldfish is female also. Bill |
A couple of newbie questions
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:43:20 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
[snip] So, Joe, are you "this" Joe Parsons: Subject: 11) Who is Joe Parsons, anyway?? From: Chris LIEthiser nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Let me see if I have this straight: you search the Usenet archives on Google and find something an individual who cowers behind myriad sockpuppets and 'nyms wrote about me. Aha...so he was writing about you...good guess on my part. Not a particularly good guess at all. It's not as though I've ever been exactly undercover on Usenet over the last twenty or so years. Didn't take much of a search, and I didn't have to go to dejanews...I just googled "Joe Parsons" and the third or fourth entry sounded just like youj. Evidently, you are content to accept that screed of personal attacks from that anonymous person as being somehow factual. As opposed to your personal attacks on me? You mean, my scurrilous, unconscionable opinion that I expressed *once* recently, where I observed that you are often "flagrantly rude" in rec.boats? If you call that sort of observation a "personal attack," Mr. Krause, well, maybe Usenet is just too harsh an environment for you. Apart from the fact that my observation of your behavior here is accurate, if a skosh gentle, I do find it interesting that you react to that observation in that way. It's pretty much par for the course, though; I have never seen you pursue a discussion with anyone here without injecting your own brand of vitriol and personal attacks. I do have to admit, though, that resorting to personal attacks as you habitually do is one way to avoid participating in an actual discussion. Anyone reading your mean-spirited response is likely to see it for what it is: the impotent mumbling of a deeply unhappy and angry man who, lacking an argument, lashes out at anyone within reach--but bloodies and soils himself in the process. Joe, for the most part I ignore you, because, frankly, you are as dull as dust. But if you are going to toss an insult my way, chances are I may see it and toss one back your way. I'm sure you'll understand when I tell you your approval is unsought and is of no value to me. If you aren't man enough to catch, then you ought not to pitch. Ah. I think I get it now. You seem to have a problem with anyone's expressing an opinion that you happen not to like. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I think, for all your posturing here, you really are thin-skinned. Joe Parsons |
A couple of newbie questions
Joe Parsons wrote:
Evidently, you are content to accept that screed of personal attacks from that anonymous person as being somehow factual. As opposed to your personal attacks on me? You mean, my scurrilous, unconscionable opinion that I expressed *once* recently, where I observed that you are often "flagrantly rude" in rec.boats? If you call that sort of observation a "personal attack," Mr. Krause, well, maybe Usenet is just too harsh an environment for you. I believe this is the second or third time we're reading this screed of yours, and there have been others. Apart from the fact that my observation of your behavior here is accurate, if a skosh gentle, Oh, puh-lease. Stop assigning yourself powers of observation that are as flatlined as your writing skills. I do find it interesting that you react to that observation in that way. It's pretty much par for the course, though; I have never seen you pursue a discussion with anyone here without injecting your own brand of vitriol and personal attacks. You need an editor. You're far too wordy. And if that is the conclusion you draw from my posting here, you simply are not widely read. I think, for all your posturing here, you really are thin-skinned. Joe Parsons Me? Thin-skinned? With all the abuse I get here? Sheesh. And you were the one who overreacted to a posting about you I reposted here. Talk about thin-skinned... -- Email sent to is never read. |
A couple of newbie questions
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:00:56 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
Joe Parsons wrote: Evidently, you are content to accept that screed of personal attacks from that anonymous person as being somehow factual. As opposed to your personal attacks on me? You mean, my scurrilous, unconscionable opinion that I expressed *once* recently, where I observed that you are often "flagrantly rude" in rec.boats? If you call that sort of observation a "personal attack," Mr. Krause, well, maybe Usenet is just too harsh an environment for you. I believe this is the second or third time we're reading this screed of yours, and there have been others. Tell you what: why don't you quote them? Or, failing that, admit that you are...wrong. Apart from the fact that my observation of your behavior here is accurate, if a skosh gentle, Oh, puh-lease. Stop assigning yourself powers of observation that are as flatlined as your writing skills. You're saying that your behavior in rec.boats is *not* consistently rude? It really doesn't take great "powers of observation" to make that determination, given your posting volume. I do find it interesting that you react to that observation in that way. It's pretty much par for the course, though; I have never seen you pursue a discussion with anyone here without injecting your own brand of vitriol and personal attacks. You need an editor. You're far too wordy. And if that is the conclusion you draw from my posting here, you simply are not widely read. Would you like to rebut my statement? I hate to break it to you, but I really don't read most of your posts--they're repetitive and don't bring any content to the table. I think, for all your posturing here, you really are thin-skinned. Joe Parsons Me? Thin-skinned? With all the abuse I get here? Sheesh. And you were the one who overreacted to a posting about you I reposted here. Talk about thin-skinned... Yes. I do think you're thin-skinned. And how does my observation of your behavior here, along with my asking you to substantiate your claim that I've made some number of attacks against you, constitute "overreacting?" Joe Parsons |
A couple of newbie questions
Do you really think posting the same nonsense twice is going to get you any more
credibility or legitimacy? Oh--and if I didn't want my email published, I wouldn't have put it in taht document in the first place. You are not doing me some sort of favor by deleting it. Don't flatter yourself that you are some sort of humanitarian. On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:07:22 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Joe Parsons wrote: Evidently, you are content to accept that screed of personal attacks from that anonymous person as being somehow factual. As opposed to your personal attacks on me? You mean, my scurrilous, unconscionable opinion that I expressed *once* recently, where I observed that you are often "flagrantly rude" in rec.boats? If you call that sort of observation a "personal attack," Mr. Krause, well, maybe Usenet is just too harsh an environment for you. I believe this is the second or third time we're reading this screed of yours, and there have been others. Apart from the fact that my observation of your behavior here is accurate, if a skosh gentle, Oh, puh-lease. Stop assigning yourself powers of observation that are as flatlined as your writing skills. I do find it interesting that you react to that observation in that way. It's pretty much par for the course, though; I have never seen you pursue a discussion with anyone here without injecting your own brand of vitriol and personal attacks. You need an editor. You're far too wordy. And if that is the conclusion you draw from my posting here, you simply are not widely read. I think, for all your posturing here, you really are thin-skinned. Joe Parsons Me? Thin-skinned? With all the abuse I get here? Sheesh. And you were the one who overreacted to a posting about you I reposted here. Talk about thin-skinned... Are you *this* Joe Parsons, too? "Who is Joe Parsons, anyway? Joe Parsons is a writer living and working in the San Francisco Bay Area. Since his fans at present are primarily people who don't send him enough money to meet his overhead, he works in mortgage banking, too. He spends as much time as he can manage sailing "Good Faith" out of Berkeley, California. One of the great epiphanies of his life was reading Ned Hallowell's "Driven to Distraction;" he still thinks it was written about him. He can be reached at (deleted by hk; say thank you) One other thing you should know about Joe Parsons: He HATES excessive quoting in Usenet and in email. He thinks quoting an entire article just to add three words is a clear indication of cluelessness." Is that your self-serving prose? Good grief, man; find an editor. |
A couple of newbie questions
Joe Parsons wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:00:56 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Joe Parsons wrote: Evidently, you are content to accept that screed of personal attacks from that anonymous person as being somehow factual. As opposed to your personal attacks on me? You mean, my scurrilous, unconscionable opinion that I expressed *once* recently, where I observed that you are often "flagrantly rude" in rec.boats? If you call that sort of observation a "personal attack," Mr. Krause, well, maybe Usenet is just too harsh an environment for you. I believe this is the second or third time we're reading this screed of yours, and there have been others. Tell you what: why don't you quote them? Or, failing that, admit that you are...wrong. That would require looking them up. You're not worth the bother. Would you like to rebut my statement? You're not worth the effort. You are boring me, Joe. Move on. I am. -- Email sent to is never read. |
A couple of newbie questions
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 05:11:56 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
Joe Parsons wrote: On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:00:56 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Joe Parsons wrote: Evidently, you are content to accept that screed of personal attacks from that anonymous person as being somehow factual. As opposed to your personal attacks on me? You mean, my scurrilous, unconscionable opinion that I expressed *once* recently, where I observed that you are often "flagrantly rude" in rec.boats? If you call that sort of observation a "personal attack," Mr. Krause, well, maybe Usenet is just too harsh an environment for you. I believe this is the second or third time we're reading this screed of yours, and there have been others. Tell you what: why don't you quote them? Or, failing that, admit that you are...wrong. That would require looking them up. You're not worth the bother. No...you could simply admit that you are (listen carefully, now) "wrong." I know that's not going to happen, though. What a sad, sad little man you must be. Joe Parsons Would you like to rebut my statement? You're not worth the effort. You are boring me, Joe. Move on. I am. |
A couple of newbie questions
JAXAshby wrote:
try Dave Gerr, for power required. He makes some dumb comments regarding theory but his formulae are "close enough" to be more than useful for specific power In other words, JAX has no clue how to figure out power/disp/speed demand curves, but has looked at the pictures in Dave Gerr's book. btw, Bob Perry publicalycalled me "an asshole" (his words, several times) Let me congratulate him on his perspicacity. for pointing out that a sine function does not EXPLODE at zero degrees (in fact it does nothing at all at zero degrees), which of course means that tens of millions of people across the country are -- by Bob's definition -- "assholes" for knowing from sine functions. Well, since you don't know a sine function from an asymptote (BTW are you sure Bob Perry didn't call you an "asymptote'?), you are on pretty safe grounds there. But what does all this gibberish have to do with hull speed? DSK |
A couple of newbie questions
BTW are you sure Bob
Perry didn't call you an "asymptote'? I can't imagine Perry would have a clew what the word meant. But what does all this gibberish have to do with hull speed? DSK weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell, dougies, if you gotta ask there seems no likelihood you would understand the answer. You see, you have read the answer earlier in this thread and you didn't even recognize it. |
A couple of newbie questions
BTW are you sure Bob
Perry didn't call you an "asymptote'? JAXAshby wrote: I can't imagine Perry would have a clew what the word meant. So, you don't know what it means either? Actually, it has far more to do with hull speed than any "sine function." But what does all this gibberish have to do with hull speed? weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell, dougies, if you gotta ask there seems no likelihood you would understand the answer. You see, you have read the answer earlier in this thread and you didn't even recognize it. In other words, you still don't know. Same old Jaxxie, same old BS. Some things never change. DSK |
A couple of newbie questions
So, you don't know what it means either?
it has no meaning in this context, though some semblence of meaning comes about at higher orders of magnitude of hull speeds, say at 10,000x to 100,000x, or 1,000,000x hull speed. Actually, it has far more to do with hull speed than any "sine function." bull****, and your saying so clearly shows you don't understand the question. In other words, you still don't know. I said it before, and I'll say it again for you dougies, the sine function quoted in the "theory" of hull speed does not EXPLODE at zero. In fact, it does virtually nothing at all at hull speed, and even if true (which it isn't) at 2x hull speed is just accounts for a 40% increase in hp required, while drag accounts for an 800% increase in hp required. I am sorry, dougies, if this confuses you so. |
A couple of newbie questions
JAXAshby wrote: I said it before, and I'll say it again for you dougies, the sine function quoted in the "theory" of hull speed does not EXPLODE at zero. In fact, it does virtually nothing at all at hull speed, and even if true (which it isn't) at 2x hull speed is just accounts for a 40% increase in hp required, while drag accounts for an 800% increase in hp required. I am sorry, dougies, if this confuses you so. It doesn't confuse me at all. But it's not as funny as I'd hoped. Tell me, does this "sine function" quoted in the "theory" of hull speed have anything to do with the concept that the hull makes waves and the "sine function" also has something to do with waves? As for the asymptote, the usually quoted hull speed is in fact an asymptote of the combined resistance graphed against speed of a given hull. It has a lot more to do with the "theory" of hull speed than any sine function. But you don't want facts, do you Jax? They seem to make you uncomfortable. DSK |
A couple of newbie questions
Tell me, does this "sine function" quoted in the "theory" of hull speed have
anything to do with the concept that the hull makes waves and the "sine function" also has something to do with waves? not at hull speed, it doesn't. the following is bull ****!! (two words), for among other things dougies doesn't know what the word means and there is in fact no (none, zero, zip, nada) asymptote at hull speed (there *is* at infinite boat speed, but that is not usually a consideration) As for the asymptote, the usually quoted hull speed is in fact an asymptote of the combined resistance graphed against speed of a given hull. It has a lot more to do with the "theory" of hull speed than any sine function. But you don't want facts, do you Jax? They seem to make you uncomfortable. DSK |
A couple of newbie questions
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:33:55 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote: On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 05:11:56 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Joe Parsons wrote: On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:00:56 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Joe Parsons wrote: Evidently, you are content to accept that screed of personal attacks from that anonymous person as being somehow factual. As opposed to your personal attacks on me? You mean, my scurrilous, unconscionable opinion that I expressed *once* recently, where I observed that you are often "flagrantly rude" in rec.boats? If you call that sort of observation a "personal attack," Mr. Krause, well, maybe Usenet is just too harsh an environment for you. I believe this is the second or third time we're reading this screed of yours, and there have been others. Tell you what: why don't you quote them? Or, failing that, admit that you are...wrong. That would require looking them up. You're not worth the bother. No...you could simply admit that you are (listen carefully, now) "wrong." I know that's not going to happen, though. What a sad, sad little man you must be. Joe Parsons Would you like to rebut my statement? You're not worth the effort. You are boring me, Joe. Move on. I am. In other words, "You've nailed me, but I just can't admit it." Most typical. He's very ignorable, Joe. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
A couple of newbie questions
JAXAshby wrote:
the following is bull ****!! (two words), for among other things dougies doesn't know what the word means and there is in fact no (none, zero, zip, nada) asymptote at hull speed (there *is* at infinite boat speed, but that is not usually a consideration) Now that *was* funny, Jax. Thank you. DSK |
A couple of newbie questions
Grow up! Sheesh!
|
A couple of newbie questions
Somebody farted in the group again,, opps, Jax is back!
|
A couple of newbie questions
Florida Keyz wrote:
Somebody farted in the group again,, opps, Jax is back! For someone who adds absolutely no value to this newsgroup, you sure whine a lot. Wouldn't you be happier reading some nonsense over on AOL? Email sent to is never read. |
A couple of newbie questions
"JAXAshby" wrote in message ... So, you don't know what it means either? it has no meaning in this context, though some semblence of meaning comes about at higher orders of magnitude of hull speeds, say at 10,000x to 100,000x, or 1,000,000x hull speed. snip There it is ... Jax in full flower; a thing of beauty, really. I had to read this passage several times to appreciate the awesome power of a full-on Jax statement. This may go down as one of the best to date. I am truly surprised that nobody else picked up on this. I am used to seeing nominal hull speeds of perhaps seven or ten knots. For some ships, maybe 30 knots. In JaxWorld, the designs (and discussions related to design) includes speeds of ten thousand to a million times "nominal" hull speed. Truth be told, I have *never* before contemplated what happens at "higher orders of magnitude of hull speeds!" Tell me Jax, when you are working with designs like this, what do you budget for propulsive power? Are there any special problems you encounter making the New York to London run in under a second? Does the sonic boom present any special design problems? Do you have any problem with the sea boiling away under your keel? For that matter, what material do you build your hulls out of? Considering that at a speed of 7 million knots, you may have some, um, special problems picking up radio waves, do you practice dead reckoning as you travel? Jax, I am *so* glad you're back. Mark Browne P.S. Decisions, decisions? Do you dig a deeper hole or admit you were spouting off by typing without thinking? |
A couple of newbie questions
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:45:20 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
[snip] Why do you low-brain-output types think *every* snotty little insult you post is worth some effort in response on the part of the recipient? If the recipient declines to get down in the crap with you, the response almost always is a variation of what John-boy here has posted. You fellow really need to move on, get a life, get a wife, get a knife, get a fife...something that will keep your hands occupied, because you sure as hell aren't going to make it on clever. And yet, strangely, here you are replying. Again. |
A couple of newbie questions
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:41:38 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
Joe Parsons wrote: On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 05:11:56 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Joe Parsons wrote: On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:00:56 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Joe Parsons wrote: Evidently, you are content to accept that screed of personal attacks from that anonymous person as being somehow factual. As opposed to your personal attacks on me? You mean, my scurrilous, unconscionable opinion that I expressed *once* recently, where I observed that you are often "flagrantly rude" in rec.boats? If you call that sort of observation a "personal attack," Mr. Krause, well, maybe Usenet is just too harsh an environment for you. I believe this is the second or third time we're reading this screed of yours, and there have been others. This would be the fourth time you've repeated your remarks, I believe. Nope. Once. Move on, fellow. Stop perseverating. If you can't, perhaps you should do something about it. The perseverating, I mean. |
A couple of newbie questions
Harry Krause wrote: Why do you low-brain-output types think *every* snotty little insult you post is worth some effort in response on the part of the recipient? If the recipient declines to get down in the crap with you, the response almost always is a variation of what John-boy here has posted. You fellow really need to move on, get a life, get a wife, get a knife, get a fife...something that will keep your hands occupied, because you sure as hell aren't going to make it on clever. ut oh, he's PMSing again. What's wrong krause, political winds not blowing the way you want them too? -- Charlie ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
A couple of newbie questions
"JAXAshby" wrote
it has no meaning in this context, though some semblence of meaning comes about at higher orders of magnitude of hull speeds, say at 10,000x to 100,000x, or 1,000,000x hull speed. snip Mark Browne wrote: There it is ... Jax in full flower; a thing of beauty, really. I had to read this passage several times to appreciate the awesome power of a full-on Jax statement. This may go down as one of the best to date. I am truly surprised that nobody else picked up on this. I thought it was pretty good, but did't really appreciate it properly. Thanks. Are you thinking of opening a discussion with Jax on "hull speed" in the context of relativistic speeds? That should be good. Instead of wave making resistance, we could have wavicle making! Jax, I am *so* glad you're back. It is kind of fun. This is what the internet is *for* dammit! Regards Doug King |
A couple of newbie questions
"JAXAshby" wrote in message ... hey, squathead, what part of English don't you understand? the statement *clearly* says "climbing the bow wave" is of no consequence at or near hull speed. snip Sorry Jax, Some of us did not realized that you were *still* brooding over a flame war you had with Doug Meredith, BigBadJohn, otnmbrd , and David Logan in July 2001: http://www.google.com/groups?as_epq=...=lang_en&hl=en You will understand why I missed your "climbing the bow wave" reference, *I* was not part of that thread. That said, looking back over the earlier thread, and looking at *this* thread, I can't see any reference to any formula for hull speed that uses the sine function. Can you set me straight on that? Also, I am still struggling with this "higher orders of magnitude of hull speeds" issue. Re-reading the 2001 thread, I noticed that you were making reference to the works of Albert "Sailor Al" Einstein. Do these high speeds have something to do with the Theory of Relativity? If so, can you enlighten me on how that works? Mark Browne P.S. It just gets better and better! |
A couple of newbie questions
both of you are nuts. It is like trying to discuss polymer chemistry with acid
heads. "JAXAshby" wrote it has no meaning in this context, though some semblence of meaning comes about at higher orders of magnitude of hull speeds, say at 10,000x to 100,000x, or 1,000,000x hull speed. snip Mark Browne wrote: There it is ... Jax in full flower; a thing of beauty, really. I had to read this passage several times to appreciate the awesome power of a full-on Jax statement. This may go down as one of the best to date. I am truly surprised that nobody else picked up on this. I thought it was pretty good, but did't really appreciate it properly. Thanks. Are you thinking of opening a discussion with Jax on "hull speed" in the context of relativistic speeds? That should be good. Instead of wave making resistance, we could have wavicle making! Jax, I am *so* glad you're back. It is kind of fun. This is what the internet is *for* dammit! Regards Doug King |
A couple of newbie questions
JAXAshby wrote:
both of you are nuts. It is like trying to discuss polymer chemistry with acid heads. Quitting so soon Jax? MENSA won't like it if you admit that you really don't know what a sine function or an asymptote is, and cannot really understand the whole concept of "hull speed." They might revoke your high IQ guarantee. DSK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com