yo-yo, the shock absorbing capability is dependent on how much sag is in the
(inelastic) chain. lots of sag, lots of shock absorbtion. less sag, a hell of
a lot less absorbtion. little sag, almost no shock absorbtion.
"NOYB"
Date: 9/18/2004 10:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:
a way to simplified look at it is to consider the chain/rode/line to
have
zero
weight pulled between two points (say 100 feet apart), then hang a 1#
weight
in
the center point and check how much strain it put on the end points when
the
weight hangs 20 feet, then 10 feet, then 5 feet, then 1 foot, then 1
inch,
then
1/10th inch. Just use trig to figure the forces.
So.... we just used intuitive trig to figure out why (1) we use scope
with an anchor and (2) why we don't tie boats to the dock with chain.
Now *that* is some real science......
And your "simplified look" does not apply.... an anchor rode does not
employ both ends at the same "Y" value.... therefore assumptions of
Y=Y'=0 do not obtain and is, therefore, the root cause of your lack
of understanding in this area. There isn't *anything* *attached* to
the middle.
the forces get out of hand ********VERY******** quickly. Even worse, is
that
the weight in the middle (or chain) has momentum as the boat rocks, so
the
"natural" position of the weight overshoots and makes for seriously high
g-loads.
There is no weight "in the middle" (other than the weight of the rode)
.... so you put two anchors on the same rode? Odd.
Using that concept, most people use kellets and think it is a good and
useful idea.
" Having a lot of sag in the rode reduces shock loads "
Isn't that what started this whole argument? Anchor chain introduces sag in
the rode. Sag in the rode reduces shock loads. So I guess I was right when
I said that anchor chain acts as a shock absorber, eh jaxie?
Threaded Mode
