Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-07-2014, 12:13 PM   #761
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,712
Brian.
"roll bar was to blame" ... as in caused clogging that prevented resetting?
__________________
Advertisement

__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2014, 01:21 PM   #762
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Brian.
"roll bar was to blame" ... as in caused clogging that prevented resetting?
A couple of thoughts / observations:

- The bottom was soft gooey mud, and it is debatable as to whether many of the anchors penetrated deep enough to reach the oyster shells and firmer granular soil below.

So with or without a roll bar, the soft mud could have slide right through the anchor as it was being slowly pulled along.

- During the rare few pulls where higher tensions were achieved, and assuming that those anchors did bury deep enough to reach the firmer soil below to develop this tension, then it is certainly possible that this firmer soil compacted against the fluke, and more so with the roll bar models, as the anchor continued to be slowly pulled forward.

- So it is not difficult to theorize that the roll bar anchor would likely have a harder time shedding this compacted soil than a non-roll bar model in the event that one broke free from the bottom.

- All of that said, we did not see EITHER anchor-type re-engage the bottom after breaking free....and they typically came up relatively clean as well.

Obviously, it would have been ideal to have had underwater cameras to film all of this, but the water was far too murky to consider this possibility.

Brian
__________________

Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2014, 06:11 PM   #763
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Eric,

You comment on the disparity of views of the 3 articles printed.

It is obvious from any anchor thread that everyone has their own ideas on anchors and have their own favourites. We all have preconceived ideas and some people are not too happy having those pre-conveived ideas contradicted. Authors are human. Even in the short time I have been here I note some acceptance of views now that were not accepted a few weeks ago - so members on this thread are willing to think more deeply and consider that what they believed in might need some tweaking. Members here also see through the spin and soon see through any bias and detect the smoke and mirrors of the snake oil salesman.

The media has few anchor experts, most boating magazines have staff who generalise, you cannot expect them to know all the detail of electronics, cordage, engines, boat handling, hull design, sails etc. You cannot expect them to know about anchor testing. I suspect many who contribute to this thread have a better idea on anchors than many, or most boating writers.

But the power of having the media on board was to ensure the tests were 'fair' and there seems to have been a decent cross section to ensure that Fortress had not manipulated the tests to their advantage. But to me one of the results was a foregone conclusion, otherwise we would not have seen the results. I found the testing of the other anchors, for which Fortress has no interest on relative merits whatsoever, more interesting. I do not believe a 10% or 20% difference in performance too meaningful (variations in seabed can easily cause that, and I do not think a user can detect that advantage anyway) - but factorial differences jump out and should hit you in the face.

I do not believe we have seen all the data yet, or there could be some interesting data hidden in the background. Fortress did much the same sort of thing, same sort of seabed, in the early 90's (and might have done something in sand). Obviously they did not test many of the modern anchors but it would be useful to see how consistent the test protocols are and how the Fortress (Danforth, CQR etc) performed then as to now. It might also be interesting to put up any sand results alongside those of today.

The other aspect I note is that the Fortress protocol demanded pulling the anchors, whatever the result, over a long distance. In reality if it was us we would discard the pulling, if no set was developing, pretty sharply. Consequently the averages should be based on discarding those pulls that did not work (but emphasising how many pulls make up the average). Obviously some anchors never set, so developing an average is difficult.

I do think our analysis of the results might be better than some of the media.

The testing appears to have been scrupulously fair, it turned over some stones showing some nasties hiding underneath and for Fortress it produced a result to (hopefully) justify the costs. I'd like to see the same tests in sand - but the costs of this one test must have been huge. Fortunately this is the sort of test that will be quoted for decades. Excellent legacy testing.

Jonathan
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2014, 07:15 AM   #764
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Jonathan,

Thanks for your input. What has not been released yet by Fortress are reports with interpretations of the data. We hired Bob Taylor and Chuck Hawley to write two separate reports on the testing, with Bob's views coming from one who has a very scientific perspective, and Chuck's views are from one who was an eyewitness aboard the test vessel, and from a boater with an extensive background in testing boating products.

As you might expect, their analysis of the data and their reports are intelligent and insightful, and yet in some cases, quite different, which has led to lengthy discussions and delays in releasing the final reports.

There was one writer aboard who is also writing a book on anchoring, and his magazine story is sure to be hard-hitting. He and his wife are liveaboards and he spent all 4 days on the Rachel Carson. His analysis and opinions were often critical and detailed, which we fully welcomed.

This writer was particularly critical of anchor manufacturers who make model recommendations without any supporting back up information regarding the holding power capabilities of their anchors in common bottom conditions. This testing in soft mud only magnified his concerns, as there were many anchors which would not hold boats for which they are recommended in anything other than very light winds, if at all.

He also felt that we at Fortress needed to do a better job ourselves in corresponding the ABYC horizontal loads table into model recommendations as well, to which I fully agree.

Regarding further tests in sand, the initial plan was to follow what we did in 1990 with soft mud testing in SF Bay (the Chesapeake Bay was chosen for this) and sand testing locally in Miami, and again, include all of the "old generation" models from those tests and the "new generation" models.

I will keep you posted on any progress with our sand bottom test plans.

Brian
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2014, 10:06 AM   #765
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortress Anchors View Post
Below are links to the stories that have been written and posted so far about the Chesapeake Bay anchor testing. More will follow from PassageMaker, Sail, and Soundings magazines:

All at Sea:
Best Anchor for the Chesapeake Bay? - ALL AT SEA

Boat US:
The Fine Art Of Anchoring - Seaworthy Magazine - BoatUS

boats.com
Fortress Anchor Testing: When It’s Good To Be a Stick in the Mud | boats.com Blog


Unfortunately, the only writers still aboard the final day were from Sail magazine, and I think one of the most surprising moments of the testing occurred when the 10 lb (4.5) kg Fortress FX-16 was pulled a few times. Fortunately this was caught on video, and I posted a link previously.

I mention this because it adds to the discussion about whether "bigger is better." The FX-16 when set at the 45° angle had comparable holding capacity to our 21 lb (10 kg) FX-37 when it was set at the 32° angle, and so "bigger was not better".......and outside of the Danforth, the FX-16 out-performed all of the other anchors that had a huge weight / size advantage as well.

So how is that even possible? Bob Taylor, who has spent 45+ years in anchor design and soil mechanics, much of which while he was in the US Navy, answered with the below when I asked him that question:


"Bigger is not always better, it has a whole lot to do with anchor configuration. A big anchor can be very unstable (Vryhof anchors have stability problems). An anchor with the center of area/pressure on the fluke that is very close to the shank to fluke connection can be very unstable. An anchor configured such that the fluke orients itself close the direction of pull such as the cast Bruce and copycats and a number of Stevin types do not take full advantage of the large fluke area available.

Increasing palm size helps to increase the fluke bearing area by causing the fluke to rotate down during pulls in mud. It is really all about configuration.

Thinner shanks help mostly in hard soil but you have to be careful that you don’t wind up destroying the anchor on its first off line pull.

Bob Ogg/Danforth and Dick Towne/STATO and the British Admiralty did some great work many years ago to understand the influences of seemingly minor changes in anchor configuration to anchor capacity. I studied all their work with huge interest because I wasn’t interested in reinventing the wheel.

As I mentioned awhile back I took a Bruce model anchor being tested in mud at Bruce’s facility in Scotland and more than doubled its capacity by a simple addition of a sheet metal plate to the back of the anchor fluke. All it did was cause the fluke to rotate down a little."
Brian, I never really thought of the 'bigger is better' argument as meaning that a heavier CQR is superior to a lighter Fortress. As I take it, the heavier of two identical anchors will always provide superior holding to its lighter twin. For that not to happen, I think the laws of physics would need suspending. I don't think the comparison of the FX 16 at 45 degrees holding better than an FX 37 at 32 degrees demonstrates anything different, unless you feel that the 37 set at 45 degrees would still be outpulled by the 16. Don't think that would occur.
__________________
Delfin
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handy
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2014, 11:15 AM   #766
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfin View Post
As I take it, the heavier of two identical anchors will always provide superior holding to its lighter twin.
Delfin,

Agreed. In fact, Bob graphed all of the data from the SF and Chesapeake Bay tests, and as the Fortress anchor physical sizes / weights increased, so did the capacities with comparable holding ratios (holding capacity / anchor weight).

The point that I was hoping to make was that a very small and light anchor (FX-16), when configured properly for the bottom condition (wider shank/fluke angle for soft mud) would perform far better than a much larger anchor, even of the same design, which was not configured properly.

So in that example, bigger is not better.

Brian
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2014, 11:56 AM   #767
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortress Anchors View Post
Delfin,

Agreed. In fact, Bob graphed all of the data from the SF and Chesapeake Bay tests, and as the Fortress anchor physical sizes / weights increased, so did the capacities with comparable holding ratios (holding capacity / anchor weight).

The point that I was hoping to make was that a very small and light anchor (FX-16), when configured properly for the bottom condition (wider shank/fluke angle for soft mud) would perform far better than a much larger anchor, even of the same design, which was not configured properly.

So in that example, bigger is not better.

Brian
Again, bigger is better doesn't apply to unlike entities. As Fortress has shown, a light weight anchor properly designed can be superior to a heavier anchor of a different design. However, the heavier Fortress will have higher holding capacity than the identical lighter Fortress - in other words, bigger is better.
__________________
Delfin
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handy
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2014, 05:38 PM   #768
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Delfin and Brian,

I think you are saying both something similar but in line with anchor thread policies want to pretend to disagree

My point is Bigger Might be Better but is unnecessary, unless you have a social conscience and want to allow anchor makers early retirement!

But Brian, thank you for the post indicating there are further analysis and data to be released. I will look forward to reading it/them. The published articles to date have been a bit brief and even more bland. It is also good news that you intend to update your data on the use of the Fortress is sand, in comparison to the current batch of anchors, - hopefully sales will increase for you from this recent batch of testing to fund the exercise (or you will be retiring late).

Jonathan
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 07:50 AM   #769
TF Site Team
 
Peter B's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Lotus
Vessel Model: Clipper (CHB) 34 Sedan/Europa style
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,669
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
Delf et al, I think the point here surely is that the anchor that is deeply set, gives better holding, than one barely set, basically just sitting on the bottom. So you could, at least theoretically, have a smaller yet identical design perform better, and in fact Brian's case of the F16 outperforming a 35, due to being more deeply set, is an actual example, so more than theoretical in this case, albeit because it's throat angle was wider and therefore better for a soft bottom.

I guess therefore, an extreme example of bigger not being better is two identical designs, but one so big the boat it was anchoring could not exert a force large enough to bury it, (admittedly an extreme and unlikely scenario), whereas the smaller one was buried deeply because it was smaller. That would then give greater holding than a larger one, sitting almost on the surface of the seabed, as it could be more easily dragged along, if things suddenly got nasty before the bigger anchor could dig in. As I said, an unlikely event, but theoretically possible I suppose. Beware the throat angle, I guess.
__________________
Pete
Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2014, 04:28 AM   #770
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
I'm not sure that Bigger is Better is such an issue for Trawlers. The original debate was initiated on a sail cruising forum where motors are meant to be auxiliary power units (and consequently small). Trawlers rely on their engines, exclusively, and their engines tend to be much larger.

As a rule of thumb it has been suggested that for every 10hp you might develop 100kg of power/load - but this is in forward gear (props are less efficient in reverse) and this simplistic formula might not be applicable for larger (and slower rpm) engines - and maybe the props are more efficient. The formula does not work either for outboards, which cavitate quickly.

But on the basis that Trawlers (and many motor boats) have a greater (or larger) power ratio, vs either length or displacement, compared to a yacht then a Trawler should be able to set an anchor, more deeply, than that same anchor by a similar length yacht.

Though none of this explains why many power boats have minimalist anchors.

But Delfin has a comparatively large anchor and I suspect large reserves of power - and is able to set that anchor deeply, under power alone. Give him a 50 or 60 hp engine - and he would struggle (to set it deeply). Consequently Delfin can set that anchor properly, there should be no issue of it pulling out (in a wind shift) because poorly set and then having to re-set itself. Now if Delfin were to become paranoid and feel the need for a 200kg Ultra (and also feel the need to lighten his wallet) then the discussion comes back into play. Yes it might be better (or not) but does he need it, the bigger anchor (he might still feel that social need to increase the anchor maker's pension fund).

And coming full circle - a smaller anchor (of the right design) in a hard seabed might develop better holding than a larger one (that had difficulty in penetrating that harder seabed).

Its horses for courses.

Jonathan
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2014, 08:55 AM   #771
Guru
 
ranger42c's Avatar
 
City: Maryland
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 42' Sportfish
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djbangi View Post

Though none of this explains why many power boats have minimalist anchors.

Only some relatively minor percentage of powerboaters around here actually anchor out, and even those that do don't necessarily anchor out very often... and might not even notice if they have a useful anchor (or if it held) or not. (Fling it overboard, open a beer...)

Marina hopping is more the norm, in this area.

I think that means makers can slap a small Delta (or whatever) on the nose of just about any power boat, call it victory... and the buyers and subsequent owners seldom notice.

And then Deltas (or others) generally work pretty well anyway. Maybe not the latest and greatest, maybe not perfect in all substrate, but "generally" is often good enough.

-Chris
__________________
South River, Chesapeake Bay
ranger42c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2014, 09:16 AM   #772
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,369
I'd guess 99%+ of those that anchor do so in sheltered waters. For the 1%ers once an anchor type has been selected it is quite common to go a size or two up (or much more in some cases) to insure no dragging on lower scopes.

Ditto more muscle for the ground tackle which has had little mention in this anchor discussion - say all chain vs short chain connected to rope on a pull test.
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2014, 10:30 AM   #773
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djbangi View Post
I'm not sure that Bigger is Better is such an issue for Trawlers. The original debate was initiated on a sail cruising forum where motors are meant to be auxiliary power units (and consequently small). Trawlers rely on their engines, exclusively, and their engines tend to be much larger.

As a rule of thumb it has been suggested that for every 10hp you might develop 100kg of power/load - but this is in forward gear (props are less efficient in reverse) and this simplistic formula might not be applicable for larger (and slower rpm) engines - and maybe the props are more efficient. The formula does not work either for outboards, which cavitate quickly.

But on the basis that Trawlers (and many motor boats) have a greater (or larger) power ratio, vs either length or displacement, compared to a yacht then a Trawler should be able to set an anchor, more deeply, than that same anchor by a similar length yacht.

Though none of this explains why many power boats have minimalist anchors.

But Delfin has a comparatively large anchor and I suspect large reserves of power - and is able to set that anchor deeply, under power alone. Give him a 50 or 60 hp engine - and he would struggle (to set it deeply). Consequently Delfin can set that anchor properly, there should be no issue of it pulling out (in a wind shift) because poorly set and then having to re-set itself. Now if Delfin were to become paranoid and feel the need for a 200kg Ultra (and also feel the need to lighten his wallet) then the discussion comes back into play. Yes it might be better (or not) but does he need it, the bigger anchor (he might still feel that social need to increase the anchor maker's pension fund).

And coming full circle - a smaller anchor (of the right design) in a hard seabed might develop better holding than a larger one (that had difficulty in penetrating that harder seabed).

Its horses for courses.

Jonathan
Jonathan, we're still not on the same page. Given the choice between a 20# Fortress and a 50# CQR, I would choose the Fortress. But that is not what the argument for BiB is about. Given the choice between a 40# CQR and a 50# CQR, I would choose the bigger CQR because its holding and penetrating capacity would be greater. Its holding capacity is greater because of gravity and its penetrating capacity would be greater because its mass is greater per square inch of surface area that has to penetrate. That is BiB.

A heavier Fortress set up the same as a lighter Fortress will also have greater holding/penetrating power for the same reason. That is BiB. Comparing one Fortress without mud flaps to another with tells us nothing about BiB because you are comparing unlike entities. But is is simply physics and geometry that dictate that BiB is ALWAYS the case when comparing the same anchors. This is so geometrically because as you increase the mass of an object, its surface area will not go up proportionately to the increase in its mass, meaning that as anchors get heavier their penetration capacity goes up regardless of the sea bed because more mass is concentrated per unit of surface area. This is so by the laws of physics because gravity works under water as well and the effect of gravity is a function of mass.

Delfin's anchor is one size larger than needed. It therefore has greater holding and penetrating capacity than an Ultra one size smaller. Would I be held better with a 1,000# Ultra? Of course, because BiB is ALWAYS the case but it is not feasible since I couldn't carry a 1,000# anchor, which is why the sensible advice is choose an anchor, then carry the biggest one that fits your budget, windlass, chain and boat.

Whatever your horsepower, whatever the size of boat, whatever your anchoring technique, Bigger is always Better and always will be until they suspend the laws of physics.
__________________
Delfin
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handy
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2014, 11:05 AM   #774
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,712
Peter wrote;
"I guess therefore, an extreme example of bigger not being better is two identical designs, but one so big the boat it was anchoring could not exert a force large enough to bury it, (admittedly an extreme and unlikely scenario), whereas the smaller one was buried deeply because it was smaller. That would then give greater holding than a larger one, sitting almost on the surface of the seabed, as it could be more easily dragged along, if things suddenly got nasty before the bigger anchor could dig in. As I said, an unlikely event, but theoretically possible I suppose. Beware the throat angle, I guess."

If the boat couldn't exert enough force to bury the large anchor but could bury a much smaller one when the wind picked up sufficiently the bigger anchor would hold the boat or penetrate the seabed, bury and hence hold the boat. With the same bottom and exactly the same anchor (except size) both should set and bury. But if even more wind came along the the big anchor should bury deeper and at some point (wind wise) the smaller anchor should break out and most importantly (for this discussion) the bigger anchor would stay buried until the wind got even stronger and then it would break out also. Bigger is better.

Brian's anchor performed better because it was NOT the same. It had a wider fluke angle.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2014, 11:30 PM   #775
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Delfin,

I have to differ.

For one gravity has nothing, or an insignificant effect, to the holding of an anchor. The anchor develops hold because it is loaded and driven into the seabed. That load can be either an engine(s) or wind. Gravity will have an effect, but most of us to do not have the time to wait for an anchor to settle (mooring concrete blocks are an example, over a year they settle).

Theory suggests an anchor with a larger surface area will have a higher holding capacity than a smaller one, assuming the same design and the same seabed. The same seabed means the same depth, as seabed has a higher shear stress with depth. However to develop that higher hold a higher setting load must be applied.

But to realise the potential of that higher surface area means that the bigger anchor must be driven down sufficiently.

The developed holding capacity of an anchor is defined by the load, if you load an anchor with 200kg then that, effectively, will be its holding capacity, whether its a big or a small anchor. It will not be bigger because its a bigger anchor - the capacity is all dependent on the load.

The only case where bigger is better is when you exceed the maximum holding capacity of the small anchor in that seabed. Once an anchor reaches its limit it will then swim horizontally, inevitably meet a contaminant and then surface and drag. As long as the small one is large enough for whatever conditions are thrown at it then its capacity will always be within its limits and a larger anchor (of the same design) will not develop a higher hold - it cannot set at a higher load as the load is the same (imposed by the same vessel). The larger anchor will be higher in the seabed (it can develop that hold at a shallower depth).

Bigger is better is only relevant if the small anchor is too small.

Its then a discussion on 'what is too small', not 'what is too big'

Jonathan

edit: There is evidence to support the above. Those who take images of their anchors, that are excessively large, )without exception) show anchors with part of the anchor still protruding above the seabed. This suggests that whatever load was imposed on them, engine or wind, was insufficient to have them dive completely. To me a well set anchor is one you cannot see. The big anchor has potential - but if its too big then that potential will never be realised - and you are just filling that pension fund (instead of enjoying malt whisky yourself - each to their own)

end edit
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2014, 12:13 AM   #776
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djbangi View Post
Delfin,

I have to differ.

For one gravity has nothing, or an insignificant effect, to the holding of an anchor. The anchor develops hold because it is loaded and driven into the seabed. That load can be either an engine(s) or wind. Gravity will have an effect, but most of us to do not have the time to wait for an anchor to settle (mooring concrete blocks are an example, over a year they settle).

Theory suggests an anchor with a larger surface area will have a higher holding capacity than a smaller one, assuming the same design and the same seabed. The same seabed means the same depth, as seabed has a higher shear stress with depth. However to develop that higher hold a higher setting load must be applied.

But to realise the potential of that higher surface area means that the bigger anchor must be driven down sufficiently.

The developed holding capacity of an anchor is defined by the load, if you load an anchor with 200kg then that, effectively, will be its holding capacity, whether its a big or a small anchor. It will not be bigger because its a bigger anchor - the capacity is all dependent on the load.

The only case where bigger is better is when you exceed the maximum holding capacity of the small anchor in that seabed. Once an anchor reaches its limit it will then swim horizontally, inevitably meet a contaminant and then surface and drag. As long as the small one is large enough for whatever conditions are thrown at it then its capacity will always be within its limits and a larger anchor (of the same design) will not develop a higher hold - it cannot set at a higher load as the load is the same (imposed by the same vessel). The larger anchor will be higher in the seabed (it can develop that hold at a shallower depth).

Bigger is better is only relevant if the small anchor is too small.

Its then a discussion on 'what is too small', not 'what is too big'

Jonathan

edit: There is evidence to support the above. Those who take images of their anchors, that are excessively large, )without exception) show anchors with part of the anchor still protruding above the seabed. This suggests that whatever load was imposed on them, engine or wind, was insufficient to have them dive completely. To me a well set anchor is one you cannot see. The big anchor has potential - but if its too big then that potential will never be realised - and you are just filling that pension fund (instead of enjoying malt whisky yourself - each to their own)

end edit
Sorry Jonathan, but that is simply contrary to the laws of physics. To say that gravity has little effect on a heavier anchor setting, that has with greater mass per square inch of surface area than a lighter anchor of the same design simply cannot be affirmed by reality. If gravity had no effect, then there would be no reason not to make all anchors small. Does the below anchor look small? Why do you think that to anchor an oil rig they use a really big anchor if size and gravity has no effect?

The effect of gravity is exactly the same in water as it is on land. I know this seems counter intuitive, but it is true. Is the force of gravity greater less or equal in water than on land.

A heavier anchor, e.g. 'bigger', will always have greater setting capability than a lighter anchor of the same design and configuration. This isn't me talking. It's Isaac Newton.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	anchors.JPG
Views:	46
Size:	48.3 KB
ID:	33582  
__________________
Delfin
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handy
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2014, 12:31 AM   #777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
I'll take an example of the 'problem', from Fortress Chesapeake mud tests.

The 45lb Mantus had an average hold of about 680lb which is enough to hold a 30' vessel in 30 knots of wind. A 40' vessel (a vessel size close to the size rated for the 45lb Mantus for cruising), in 30 knots of wind, would need a Mantus of around twice the size, so 90lbs, in order to develop the required hold of 1,200lbs - noting that none of this offers any safety margin (and I'm making the assumption, possibly erroneous, that doubling size, doubles hold). (Hold or load data from ABYC.)

You decide on a safety margin, a minimalist factor of 2 brings in a rather large 180lb Mantus.

The Bigger is Better thesis was that carrying a bigger anchor, because it was 'so safe', offered the opportunity to only need one anchor. The enough is enough thesis was that you do not need that ridiculously large anchor but a suite of small anchors, so instead of the 90lb or 180lb Mantus you have a recommended sized Mantus, say 45lb and a Fortress FX-37, 21lb and which will give you a rather 'comfortable' hold of average about 1,900lbs (or a Danforth a size or couple of sizes up from the 35lb model tested).

It does not matter what sized anchor you have, you might lose it, damage, irretrievably stuck. Carring a spare 90lb anchor, looks a bit inconvenient, a second 45lb anchor (in addition to the Fortress) looks very attractive (unless you have a crane on the bow).

Again, I paint black and white - shades of grey would be better.

Jonathan
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2014, 12:39 AM   #778
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Delfin,

If you take an anchor and sit it on the seabed it is already affected by gravity - it does not set!

Gravity does not vary - its the same gravity whether its sitting there smiling at you or scowling because you pull it. Once it gets over its scowl it sets because of design and the fact you pull it (the gravitational effect does not increase because you pull it).

Oil rigs use bigger anchors because they develop more hold.

A Danforth heavier than a Fortress develops the same hold (at 32 degrees) even though the Danforth is 50% heavier. A 15kg steel Excel of exactly the same design and dimensions to the nearest mm, or thou, develops the same hold as a 9kg alloy model. A 15kg Steel Spade develops exactly the same hold as a 9kg alloy model of the same dimensions. I've tested the Spade and Excel and I think you will find that Anchor Right will confirm something similar for their Excels.

Jonathan

edit: Finally - there are a huge number of University research papers (Houston is a base of excellence) on anchor design. In terms of hold - weight it totally irrelevant, its all about surface area (for a given design). The problem is that as the anchor gets bigger (in area) it needs to be stronger and the only way to make it stronger is to use thicker steel and thicker steel is heavier.

You can save weight by using stronger steels - but there is a limit to the steels you can use and then the equation becomes the same, to be strong enough it must use thicker steel, its then heavier.

If you still do not believe I'll try to find a dissertation examining this very feature (its a bit heavy, I think 500 pages long - but then it is about anchors)

close edit

Jonathan
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2014, 01:26 AM   #779
Master and Commander
 
markpierce's Avatar
 
City: Vallejo CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Carquinez Coot
Vessel Model: 2011 Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,262
So what's the principle, if not gravity, behind semi-permanent anchors such as the mushroom-type on this lightship?

__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2014, 01:30 AM   #780
Guru
 
HopCar's Avatar


 
City: Miami Florida
Vessel Name: Possum
Vessel Model: Ellis 28
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,505
"You can save weight by using stronger steels - but there is a limit to the steels you can use and then the equation becomes the same, to be strong enough it must use thicker steel, its then heavier."

I heard a rumor that Fortress was making a carbon fiber anchor that is even lighter than their aluminum anchors.
(Actually I didn't hear that rumor, I'm trying to start it.)
__________________

__________________
Parks Masterson
www.hopkins-carter.com
HopCar is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012