Empathy List Archives

D

DonDodds@aol.com

Fri, Jul 23, 1999 5:23 AM

Mike

I am sorry, I didn't want to get into this, but this idea that the super max
is a magic anchor is dangerous.

With either SM, the pivoting arm or the rigid, the anngle of attack into

the bottom for sand, coral, rocks, and hard mud is 8.5 degrees. For normal
mud
the angle of attack should be 18 degrees and for soft mud the angle
should be 35 degrees. If the angle from the boat to the anchor in sand with
the
rode stretched taut is 19 degrees at a 5-1 scope, then the SM will
penetrate the most efficiently at an angle of attack into the bottom of 8.5
degrees.<<

I am sorry but this is complete and utter BS. The angle that the rode pulls
up on the anchor shank varies from below horizontal to something just less
than the scope angle through out the setting process and depends on as I said
earlier the weight of the rode, scope and the power of the boat.

Andy is trying to make his anchor sound magic. He desperately wants it to be
different than others. It is not. In fact in my mind it is just a modified
Bruce. Any anchor can be set on occasions a 3:1 or Even 2:1, that does not
make it a physical law. I have personally viewed the video tapes of his
testing experiments and observed the SM setting with the shank angle of zero.

1.5-1 and held in winds recorded up to 45 knots with no problems. That

boat had a lot of chain in addition to nylon, so the chain's catenary raised
the scope to a more reasonable 3-1 even with winds of 45.<<

I would like to see the calculations that back up this claim.

We also do not recommend the use of chain except in limited amounts for

chafe protection. <<

This at least is not bad advice, but for the wrong reasons. He seems to
forget that setting a nylon rode at 5:1 can result in an actual 6:1 scope
being applied to the anchor because of the stretch. What pray tell then
happens to his magical shank angle calculations?

The sand at that location was sufficiently deep to not allow penetration

sufficiently to get down to the mud, or perhaps there was no mud there. So
the anchor had the wrong arm position <<

and again.

When you came back on Friday, the anchor found about 6" of sand over mud

and it penetrated it easily and held<<

I have always thought the SM was a decent anchor however, If the anchor is
really this sensitive to the correct arm position that 6 " more or less of
sand prevents it from setting, is this such a good anchor?

In spite of what some of the experts say about anchoring with long

scopes<<

I have tried repeatedly to get Andy to show me the physics and calculations
behind his claims, to no avail. So far all he has offered is anecdotal
evidence similar to those given in his e-mail. Until I see hard proof of
these claims, I say, when in doubt, go with the experts they are not trying
to sell anchors.

Don Dodds
President
North Pacific Research

Mike I am sorry, I didn't want to get into this, but this idea that the super max is a magic anchor is dangerous. >> With either SM, the pivoting arm or the rigid, the anngle of attack into the bottom for sand, coral, rocks, and hard mud is 8.5 degrees. For normal mud the angle of attack should be 18 degrees and for soft mud the angle should be 35 degrees. If the angle from the boat to the anchor in sand with the rode stretched taut is 19 degrees at a 5-1 scope, then the SM will penetrate the most efficiently at an angle of attack into the bottom of 8.5 degrees.<< I am sorry but this is complete and utter BS. The angle that the rode pulls up on the anchor shank varies from below horizontal to something just less than the scope angle through out the setting process and depends on as I said earlier the weight of the rode, scope and the power of the boat. Andy is trying to make his anchor sound magic. He desperately wants it to be different than others. It is not. In fact in my mind it is just a modified Bruce. Any anchor can be set on occasions a 3:1 or Even 2:1, that does not make it a physical law. I have personally viewed the video tapes of his testing experiments and observed the SM setting with the shank angle of zero. >>1.5-1 and held in winds recorded up to 45 knots with no problems. That boat had a lot of chain in addition to nylon, so the chain's catenary raised the scope to a more reasonable 3-1 even with winds of 45.<< I would like to see the calculations that back up this claim. >>We also do not recommend the use of chain except in limited amounts for chafe protection. << This at least is not bad advice, but for the wrong reasons. He seems to forget that setting a nylon rode at 5:1 can result in an actual 6:1 scope being applied to the anchor because of the stretch. What pray tell then happens to his magical shank angle calculations? >>The sand at that location was sufficiently deep to not allow penetration sufficiently to get down to the mud, or perhaps there was no mud there. So the anchor had the wrong arm position << and again. >>When you came back on Friday, the anchor found about 6" of sand over mud and it penetrated it easily and held<< I have always thought the SM was a decent anchor however, If the anchor is really this sensitive to the correct arm position that 6 " more or less of sand prevents it from setting, is this such a good anchor? >> In spite of what some of the experts say about anchoring with long scopes<< I have tried repeatedly to get Andy to show me the physics and calculations behind his claims, to no avail. So far all he has offered is anecdotal evidence similar to those given in his e-mail. Until I see hard proof of these claims, I say, when in doubt, go with the experts they are not trying to sell anchors. Don Dodds President North Pacific Research

M

MTTortuga@iline.com

Sat, Jul 24, 1999 12:12 AM

Andy is trying to make his anchor sound magic. He desperately wants it to

be

different than others. It is not. In fact in my mind it is just a

modified

Bruce. > Don Dodds
President
North Pacific Research

Don,
My question is this. Have you tried a SuperMax? You have not said in all
your posts anything that would lead me to say you have. I have one. It works
as advertised. The other anchors do not. ( In mud ) You say it is not
different from other anchors. It is! It is one of only 2 anchors I know of
that is adjustable. You seen to be trying hard to say the designer doesn't
know anything about the " book learnin' " of anchoring but when Mike does
what Andy said to do, which you say is BS, it works!

Hummm, I wonder who has it right...

Morley
M/V Tortuga ( 35' Ta Chiao )
Cape Coral, Florida

> > Andy is trying to make his anchor sound magic. He desperately wants it to be > different than others. It is not. In fact in my mind it is just a modified > Bruce. > Don Dodds > President > North Pacific Research Don, My question is this. Have you tried a SuperMax? You have not said in all your posts anything that would lead me to say you have. I have one. It works as advertised. The other anchors do not. ( In mud ) You say it is not different from other anchors. It is! It is one of only 2 anchors I know of that is adjustable. You seen to be trying hard to say the designer doesn't know anything about the " book learnin' " of anchoring but when Mike does what Andy said to do, which you say is BS, it works! Hummm, I wonder who has it right... Morley M/V Tortuga ( 35' Ta Chiao ) Cape Coral, Florida

Y

yourcaptain@earthlink.net

Sat, Jul 24, 1999 1:51 AM

The Danforth and Plow have been around a long time and easy to use no pins
to set or bottom survey necessary, geyt one of each throw them over and go
to sleep. They have been working for tens of thousands of boaters.
Check out the bigger yachts where money for an anchor really doesn't matter
and you won' find any new mouse traps hanging off the bow
AL

---=======================
.

Mike

I am sorry, I didn't want to get into this, but this idea that the super max
is a magic anchor is dangerous.

With either SM, the pivoting arm or the rigid, the anngle of attack into

the bottom for sand, coral, rocks, and hard mud is 8.5 degrees. For normal
mud
the angle of attack should be 18 degrees and for soft mud the angle
should be 35 degrees. If the angle from the boat to the anchor in sand with
the
rode stretched taut is 19 degrees at a 5-1 scope, then the SM will
penetrate the most efficiently at an angle of attack into the bottom of 8.5
degrees.

.
Captain Al Pilvinis

"M/V Driftwood"--Prairie 47
2630 N.E. 41st Street
Lighthouse Point, Fl 33064-8064
Voice 954-941-2556 Fax 954 788-2666
Email - CaptainAl@Juno.com
Website http://home.earthlink.net/~yourcaptain

The Danforth and Plow have been around a long time and easy to use no pins to set or bottom survey necessary, geyt one of each throw them over and go to sleep. They have been working for tens of thousands of boaters. Check out the bigger yachts where money for an anchor really doesn't matter and you won' find any new mouse traps hanging off the bow AL ======================================================== . >Mike > >I am sorry, I didn't want to get into this, but this idea that the super max >is a magic anchor is dangerous. > >>> With either SM, the pivoting arm or the rigid, the anngle of attack into >the bottom for sand, coral, rocks, and hard mud is 8.5 degrees. For normal >mud >the angle of attack should be 18 degrees and for soft mud the angle >should be 35 degrees. If the angle from the boat to the anchor in sand with >the >rode stretched taut is 19 degrees at a 5-1 scope, then the SM will >penetrate the most efficiently at an angle of attack into the bottom of 8.5 >degrees. . Captain Al Pilvinis "M/V Driftwood"--Prairie 47 2630 N.E. 41st Street Lighthouse Point, Fl 33064-8064 Voice 954-941-2556 Fax 954 788-2666 Email - CaptainAl@Juno.com Website http://home.earthlink.net/~yourcaptain

trawlers@lists.trawlering.com

Re:Anchor Scope and Etiquette/ was Max Anchor, Creative Marine