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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Grow up! Sheesh!

"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?

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.

even with 7 years, and counting, of high school, yo-yo, you should have caught
that. Now, put the comic away and get back to study hall.

From: "Mark Browne"
Date: 1/21/2004 1:18 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: fRoPb.110565$I06.758769@attbi_s01


"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?

"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!