Why your anchor doesn't work

Here is a scientific explanation of why you don't even need an anchor, and as a bonus, how your anchor rode can charge your batteries after throwing away your anchor................Arctic Traveller***



http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/why_anchors_dont_work

I don't see how thermodynamics is involved in an anchor system.* The article is silly.

After careful analysis, it seems to work by the process of discombobulation.

It was fun to read and a bit interesting but his conclusion was (as we used to say)

FAR OUT

Most engineers that throw out all of this technical jargon and what not, at the end they provide a solution. I cannot argue his theory because I am an Electrical engineer, but I see he provides no alternative method of anchoring. Therefore, he sounds like a PHD student writning this in a library and probably has never been in 30 knot winds while at anchor. But, based on what he says, I'll need about 3000 feet of rode for my boat, whether it be chain or "steel bars". Not sure there is a windlass out there that can handle steel bars. Anyway, the anchoring on 200 ft wide creeks would be over.

My analysis of this artice: He's an idiot!

BTW, My anchor works!

-- Edited by windmill29130 on Friday 18th of February 2011 12:53:53 PM

windmill29130 wrote:

...he sounds like a PHD student writing this in a library and probably has never been in 30 knot winds while at anchor. ...

My analysis of this artice: He's an idiot!

BTW, My anchor works!

Click to expand...

x2!!

*

windmill29130 wrote:

... he sounds like a PHD student ...*

Click to expand...

Windmill, the author doesn't exhibit the expected*qualities of a PhD candidate at all.* Maybe he got as far*as high-school physics with a grade of C-.

*

No offense to PHD students, but I have met quite few that know a whole lot about nothing!

windmill29130 wrote:



My analysis of this artice: He's an idiot!

Click to expand...

Agreed, but did he make you smile at least?.........................Arctic Traveller

(And I'm not throwing away my Delta Fast Set just yet)

Scientists can also prove that the bumblebee cannot fly.

His error is assuming that all the energy imparted to the boat by wind and sea is ultimately converted to heat by the anchor rode. Although he touches on the correct description when he says "On considering the physics of the matter, the most obvious function of the rode is to store and release kinetic energy." The next line is where he misses the point, "It's least obvious but, I suggest, its most important function is to dissipate kinetic energy as heat."

There will be a very small amount of heat produced by friction in the links or rope fibers that is dissipated to the water. But the primary method of releasing the stored energy is to move the boat back. The catenary in the chain acts like a spring which very efficiently stores and releases energy with little heat created.

Saying the anchor doesn't work is a little misleading. An anchor doesn't "do" work just like a piling or bollard doesn't "do" work. The anchor when functioning properly doesn't move - it works but doesn't "do" work.

He starts out right at the beginning making a mistake. He probably read somewhere that Work = Force X Distance, which is true and I thought that's where he was going with this. But he just showed me that he reads a lot and thinks a lot but has no actual experience.
John

That's Morons kid finally finishing college. The conclucions and close buy not quite there assumptions sound familiar.

Keith

-- Edited by 2bucks on Saturday 19th of February 2011 09:20:26 AM