"Hull speed" is voodoo science
 

Who cares what hull speed is?

The manatee police

If you're having a good day on the boat,
what's the diff how fast you're having fun?

$100

"Hull speed" is voodoo science
 

On 11 Apr 2004 15:11:46 GMT, (Greg) wrote:
Who cares what hull speed is?

The manatee police

If you're having a good day on the boat,
what's the diff how fast you're having fun?

$100

==================================

The manatee police are not allowed to run on plane unless in "hot
pursuit", therefore no one else should be on plane either.

It's about time we find some way to rein in the Fish and Wildlife
commission, as well as the Corps of Engineers. Both groups are out of
control in my opinion, and doing it with our tax dollars.

"Hull speed" is voodoo science
 

On 10 Apr 2004 13:45:52 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:
It is, of course, though many ignorant people will claim they read it in a
book, so it HAS to be true.

====================================

There are hull forms that are not bound by their own wave train, or
are bound to a lesser extent (such as long skinny hulls).

There are two primary sources of drag on a boat: Friction ( a function
of surface area and smoothness), and induced drag imparted from
converting motion into wave trains. At low speeds friction dominates
as the primary drag factor, and as speed increases wave making becomes
the dominant factor in a non-planing hull. For an average
displacement hull the tradional equation works fairly well at
identifying the approximate crossover point, where considerable extra
power is required to go any faster.

"Hull speed" is voodoo science
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On 10 Apr 2004 13:45:52 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:
It is, of course, though many ignorant people will claim they read it in
a
book, so it HAS to be true.

====================================

There are hull forms that are not bound by their own wave train, or
are bound to a lesser extent (such as long skinny hulls).

There are two primary sources of drag on a boat: Friction ( a function
of surface area and smoothness), and induced drag imparted from
converting motion into wave trains. At low speeds friction dominates
as the primary drag factor, and as speed increases wave making becomes
the dominant factor in a non-planing hull. For an average
displacement hull the tradional equation works fairly well at
identifying the approximate crossover point, where considerable extra
power is required to go any faster.


Thanks Wayne.

Mark Browne

"Hull speed" is voodoo science
 

"Greg" wrote in message
...
Who cares what hull speed is?

The manatee police

If you're having a good day on the boat,
what's the diff how fast you're having fun?

$100

What method do they use to measure your speed?

"Hull speed" is voodoo science
 

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:43:58 GMT, "Mark Browne"
wrote:

Thanks Wayne.
========================

You're quite welcome. Hopefully I didn't belabor the obvious.

"Hull speed" is voodoo science
 

IMO, a Hobie Cat is on plane....(hell,
sometimes airborne)..when it is making better than hull speed.

Hobies have DEEP Vee hulls, not possible to plane.


Normally laden, all but a few inches of that
"Deep Vee" is above the waterline.

What's the effective draft of a Hobie Cat, in inches?

One could make a case that the boat is always, (effectively) on plane at least
as easily as a case that it cannot plane at all.

http://www.hobiecat.com/sailing/index.html

The exceptions prove the rule, as always.

( OT ) LIES! LIES! LIES! DAMNED LIES!
 

The White House this weekend released a section of the classified August
6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing
(http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centr...ws/8409007.htm) (PDB), which
explicitly warned President Bush of an imminent al Qaeda attack inside the
United States. The document contradicts President Bush's own denials, and
raises the question of whether National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice
lied under oath last week in describing the memo's contents before the
bipartisan 9/11 Commission. The President "said yesterday that a memo did
not contain enough specific threat information
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Apr11.html) " with
Bush claiming "the PDB was no indication of a terrorist threat" because it
supposedly " said nothing about an attack on America
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20040411.html) ...was not
a time and place of an attack" specified. But as the NYT notes, the PDB "
spells out the who, hints at the what and points toward the where
(http://www.iht.com/articles/514272.html) of the terrorist attacks on New
York and Washington that followed 36 days later." CNN Political Analyst
(and AEI scholar) Bill Schneider said the PDB revelations " could be
seriously damaging
(http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/0...tsc.schneider/) . What this says
is, the White House knew what bin Laden was capable of planning, where he
intended to do it, which was New York or Washington, D.C., and how he was
going to do it."



LYING UNDER OATH -- PDB REFUTES RICE'S SWORN TESTIMONY: In her testimony
under oath before the 9/11 Commission last week, Rice said the August 6th
PDB "was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new
threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/08RICE-
TEXT.html?pagewanted=print&position=) inside the United States." But the
PDB contained very current and specific information
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Apr10.html) about
ongoing investigations and threats -- a direct contradiction of Rice's
testimony (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/04/10/MNG3G638001.DTL) . The PDB said there
were "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with
preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent
surveillance of federal buildings in New York...The FBI is conducting
approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it
considers Bin Ladin-related" including one following leads about "Bin Ladin
supporters in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives." American Progress
reports the truth behind Rice's testimony.
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=44918)



DISHONESTY -- STILL SAYING HE REQUESTED THE BRIEFING: The President
yesterday insisted that he personally requested the August 6 intelligence
briefing (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20040411.html)
because he was so concerned about terrorism, saying "I asked the
intelligence agency to analyze the data to tell me whether or not we faced
a threat internally...That's what the PDB request was." But according to
the CIA, the briefing " was not requested by President Bush
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...04Mar24_2.html) ."
As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel
that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush
and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA."



NEGLIGENCE -- LOAFING WHILE SUPPOSEDLY "AT BATTLE STATIONS": The WP
explored the Bush Administration's claims that " The President of the
United States had us at battle stations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/articles/A2676-2004Apr10.html) " during the summer of 2001. But "if top
officials were at battle stations, there was no sign of it on the surface.
Bush spent most of August 2001 on his ranch" -- taking one of the longest
Presidential vacations in White House history
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...01-08-03-bush-
vacation.htm) . One former Bush aide "who remains close to the White House
said the use of the term 'battle stations' by Rice was an overstatement."
And as an American Progress backgrounder
(http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/...A2B-43C7-A521-
5D6FF2E06E03%7d/timeline.pdf) shows, the President did not appear to
change his schedule at all from the month-long regimen of golf, running,
and cookouts. The Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial board said the
President's pre-9/11 conduct displayed " a criminal lack of interest in
trying to prevent an attack
(http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4712842.html) on the United States
that the administration had strong reason to expect" adding that "almost
nothing of a defensive nature was done to guard against -- to prevent --
the horrific spectacle that unfolded on Sept. 11."



--
Jim

( OT ) LIES! LIES! LIES! DAMNED LIES!
 

Maybe they did know the attack was in DC and NYC so that was where all the cops
went. The planes were hijacked in Boston.

( OT ) LIES! LIES! LIES! DAMNED LIES!
 

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:34:03 GMT, Jim wrote:


The White House this weekend released a section of the classified August
6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing

Do you really need 12-15 different news sources to tell you what was in the PDB
of 6 August. Here it is, just read it. Where does it give the who, what, when,
where?

Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since
1997' has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US
television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the
example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to
America."

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told
followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [deleted text]
service. An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [deleted text]
service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's
access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin's
first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted
plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los
Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu
Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said
that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.

Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in
Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in
advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our
Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the
Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al-Qa'ida members — including some who are US citizens — have resided in or
traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support
structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the
conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior
EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was
recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat
reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin
Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh"
'Umar' Abd aI-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious
activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other
types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New
York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the
US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call
to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was
in the US planning attacks
with explosives.
*****************************************

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!