"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JAXAshby wrote:
yo-yo bilge rat, there is no historical evidence whatsoever that that
dude ever
existed.

but, then there is no historical evidence to show you have a brain,
either.

Ain't it strange that Christ could left his church in the care of any
of his
apostles, among the ones we know of were tax collectors,farmers,
tradesmen,
prostitutes(reformed), and fishermen.

There's no need to argue about the existence of Jesus. There's no way to
prove he existed or didn't exist It's sort of like George W. Bush's
"completion" of duties in the National Guard - he either didn't or did,
but there's no way to prove it: you have to accept or deny it on faith
alone.






--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a
pariah.

What, me worry?

There is lots of evidence he existed. The question is was he the Son of God
as the Western Religions claim, or just another Prophet like Mohammed as the
Muslim claim. Or was he just a leader of a cult.

There is lots of evidence he existed

none.

"NOYB" wrote in message ...
"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...


How much is 2 G's? it is stopping short in 4 inches when moving 8 feet per
second. Think of the wave action needed to make a boat move 8 feet in a
second. On a 20,000# pound boat that would be a 40,000# strain on the
chain,
anchor, deck chocks.

Your math is wrong.

Starting with boat travelling at 8 ft/sec, a 2 g force will require 6
inches to stop the boat, and the boat will come to a stop in 1/8th of
a second.

To stop a boat travelling at 8 ft/sec within 1 second, the force
required is 1/4 g and the distance to stop is 4 feet.

To move a boat starting from standstill to 8 feet away within 1
second, the accelleration needed is 1/2 g and the speed attained at
the end of that 1 second of accelleration would be 16 ft/sec.

v(t)=at, d(t)=(1/2)at^2 and all that.

%mod%

the accelleration needed is 1/2 g

1/2 G (note the capitization) means a 11,000# strain on a 22,000 # boat. you
got 11,000# chain/chocks/anchor on your boat.

btw, yo-yo, the G-loads can be one hell of a lot higher than 1/2.

Starting with boat travelling at 8 ft/sec, a 2 g force will require 6
inches to stop the boat, and the boat will come to a stop in 1/8th of
a second.

1/4 second, not 1/8th. one hell of a difference.

but thanks for googling for hours trying to make an unproveable point.

genie, knock it off. you spend a year on www.HookedOnPhonics.com and then come
back here.

"Gene Kearns"
Date: 9/23/2004 11:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:09:25 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
**some** is a pedant use of the word. particularly in the context of
multi-G
shock loads. i.e. "reducing" by "some" measure from 4.898 G's to
4.89799983
G's.

A wave surge isn't causing multi-G shock loads, jackassby.


Ok, let's see where we are. Jax admits that chain has shock absorbing
ability as long as it is a catenary... that it hasn't been pulled
straight.

Jax avers that all "rope" rode is "better" because it has shock
absorbing capability.

So, they both have shock absorbing ability until they are pulled
straight. Well, duh! The last thing we want to do in either scenario
is pull all the slack out of the rode... to do that would destroy the
ability of the anchor to hold, anyway.

Assumption that an anchor is some sort of immovable object isn't very
bright... even for Jax. Most all chain rodes won't support the kind
of tensions that Jax imagines take place, either. (But, then, this is
the sort of silly argument that Jax raged concerning sailors being
snatched into with safety gear... ah, but I digress.)

Jax has adopted some figures that 2G's will be developed in moving a
boat 4 inches at 8 feet per second.... yielding a 40,000# pull on a
20,000# boat.... obviously flawed, because no standard rode (chain or
line) or anchor is going to hold.... let alone standard deck hardware
and attachments... and boats *do* anchor. Thus, we can conclude that
Jax's figures and position are flawed and must be reconsidered. If
this scenario were anywhere near accurate, anchoring, per se, would be
operationally impossible. I suggest that Jax post his equations and
sources for numerical evidence, in the future, if he cares to make
such observably irrational conclusions and sway anybody to his
understanding of nature.

The point that seems to be overlooked is that what makes an anchor
*hold* is securing the anchor to the bottom while maintaining the
shank of the anchor parallel to the bottom. This is the whole
argument for sufficient scope. The material forming the rode can
either enhance or aggravate this situation. As I have previously
posted... and provided links to ...... scientific studies have shown
that when the shank of an anchor is pulled above the horizontal to 10
degrees the maximum holding power has been reduced to 60%, at 15
degrees it is down to 40% .. 10 degrees of yaw can increase pull by
60%.


Thus, one limiting factor in all of this is the ability of the anchor
to hold the bottom. A large anchor may only have a holding power of
3500#. Using an all line rode, this may decay to about #2100 or even
1400# depending on scope or rode angle. A 5:1 scope yields about an
11.3 degree angle and a 7:1 scope yields about 8 degrees... and thus,
has a tendency to raise the anchor shack to this angle.

The line/chain splice may further reduce rode strength from 12%-25%.

A kellet, line/chain, or all chain rode serves to solve the root
cause of anchor pull out.... the lifting of the shank. This is best
done by properly sized chain or a kellet.... if maximum holding power
is sought. Obviously, an all line rode will suffice in most instances
and often, a line/chain rode is employed simply for the purpose of
abrasion resistance.

To date,

Jax has posted no documentary evidence that any statement he has made
is either correct or germane,

Jax has posted no formulae or germane mathematical support of his
argument (straw men of 20,000# boats being jerked by a 40,000# load
notwithstanding),

I see no support for Jax's immovable object (anchor) theory,

I see no evidence that any ground tackle found on any boat other that
something bordering a ship will support anything remotely close to
40,000#

nobody has posted any documented evidence of deck hardware being
damaged solely by using an all chain rode,

nobody has posted anything documented or observable that would suggest
that an all chain rode has less holding power than an all line rode
nor that a properly sized all chain rode subjects a boat to any more
or less shock absorption than all line rode.


Rather than merely strike a pose as Jax has done, here are my:

===========References=============
http://www.anchorbuddy.co.nz/royalnavy.html
http://www.ussailing.org/safety/anchor/results_13.htm
http://www.noteco.com/bulwagga/multi...pdf_Jan_01.pdf
http://www.ussailing.org/safety/Stud...hainsplice.htm
http://www1.iwvisp.com/download/pub/...eet/anchor.xls
http://cruisenews.net/db/pagetemplate.php?cat_id=17
http://www.dnv.com/binaries/req%20on..._tcm4-9375.pdf
--



Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC.

http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/cavern/ Homepage
http://www.southharbourvillageinn.com/directions.asp Where Southport,NC
is located.
http://www.southharbourvillageinn.linksysnet.com Real Time
Pictures at My Marina
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats Rec.boats
at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide

Assumption that an anchor is some sort of immovable object isn't very
bright.

genie, who taught you that anchors are supposed to move?

yielding a 40,000# pull on a
20,000# boat.... obviously flawed, because no standard rode (chain or
line) or anchor is going to hold....

yup, but the nylon places the load of considerable time and distance.
therefore the shock load is several orders of magnitude lower.

let alone standard deck hardware
and attachments.

If
this scenario were anywhere near accurate, anchoring, per se, would be
operationally impossible

you, perhaps, have noticed that all the boats which drag -- due to an Act of
God -- in a storm are on all chain, or mostly chain with a few feet of nylon?

Of course you haven't. you have never seen a storm, except hidden in the back
of the closet in your bedroom at home.

I suggest that Jax post his equations

D = 16 T^2

S = T * A

A (one G) = 32 ft/sec^2

you can find these equations in a junior high school science class for advanced
students.