MedMan
New member
Hylas! Just what is your theory?
Hylas! You say: “… but from my experience, I perfectly know how it should be difficult to introduce new “disturbing” theories… mainly when they are quite different from old beliefs that have been in use for centuries.. People have believed that the earth was a flat disc for centuries… and it has not be easy to convince them that it was round.”
It is true that the History of Science records some memorable occasions when brilliant, clear-thinking scientists have proposed a theory that ran contrary to current beliefs but which we now accept as established fact. One of the most notable is Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. However, for every such case there must be hundreds if not thousands of theories proposed by scientists, passionately convinced that they were right, but who history has shown to be wrong.
For your hypothesis to become accepted as ‘The Hylas Theory’, established ‘Scientific Method’ demands that you should:
1. Clearly and unambiguously state your hypothesis.
2. Use the hypothesis to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
3. Submit your hypothesis to experimental tests by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
So far, certainly as far as this thread is concerned, you have failed on all three counts.
In your first post on this thread you said:
“The weight of the chain has nearly NO action in the holding of an anchor.”
Your post contained no caveats, no parameters and no exceptions. It was a bald statement unsupported by mathematics and unsupported by observation. There is a nice simple word to describe such statements – ‘WRONG!’
In later posts, wriggling on the hook perhaps, you do appear to have qualified your hypothesis by stating that it only applies in high wind speeds, but you have varied in just how high that might be. Can you please be quite specific about this? Are you proposing a theory that applies in all wind conditions or a theory that only applies above a certain wind-speed? If the latter, just what is that wind speed? Does the wind speed over which your theory applies vary with any other parameter and, if so, what is the relationship between the two?
You appear to have conceded that the weight of the chain is important at ‘low speeds’ but then dismissed the fact by saying “who cares about holding at low wind speeds?” I care. I care because 95% of my anchoring is in what you appear to classify as ‘low wind speeds’. From my personal experience, I would classify wind speeds in relation to anchoring as follows:
Low: 0 to 15 knots. Low chance of dragging. No action required after the anchor has been properly set. In a good season in the Med 60% or more of my nights come into this category.
Moderate: 15 to 30 knots. A rapidly increasing risk of dragging as the wind increases through this band. Veering extra chain is almost always successful. 30 % or more of my nights come into this category.
High: 30 knots and above. A very high risk of dragging. Considerable activity is required to make the boat safe including some or all of the following: veering all chain available extended with nylon rope if necessary, deploying a second anchor, deploying a chum, adding chafe protection and setting an anchor watch. Mercifully, less than 5% of my nights come into this category.
It is reasonable, perhaps, to ignore the ‘Low’ category, but it is not reasonable to ignore the ‘Medium’ category. It is within this range of wind speeds that most of us face real risks when at anchor and where good advice is important. For you to suggest that “the weight of the chain has nearly NO action” in such conditions is not just wrong, it is dangerously wrong.
So, for the benefit of those of us who have followed this thread so far, could you please state your hypothesis clearly and unambiguously, including the wind speeds in which it applies, so that we all know precisely what you are trying to say.
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.geocities.com/yachtretreat/>http://www.geocities.com/yachtretreat/</A>
Hylas! You say: “… but from my experience, I perfectly know how it should be difficult to introduce new “disturbing” theories… mainly when they are quite different from old beliefs that have been in use for centuries.. People have believed that the earth was a flat disc for centuries… and it has not be easy to convince them that it was round.”
It is true that the History of Science records some memorable occasions when brilliant, clear-thinking scientists have proposed a theory that ran contrary to current beliefs but which we now accept as established fact. One of the most notable is Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. However, for every such case there must be hundreds if not thousands of theories proposed by scientists, passionately convinced that they were right, but who history has shown to be wrong.
For your hypothesis to become accepted as ‘The Hylas Theory’, established ‘Scientific Method’ demands that you should:
1. Clearly and unambiguously state your hypothesis.
2. Use the hypothesis to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
3. Submit your hypothesis to experimental tests by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
So far, certainly as far as this thread is concerned, you have failed on all three counts.
In your first post on this thread you said:
“The weight of the chain has nearly NO action in the holding of an anchor.”
Your post contained no caveats, no parameters and no exceptions. It was a bald statement unsupported by mathematics and unsupported by observation. There is a nice simple word to describe such statements – ‘WRONG!’
In later posts, wriggling on the hook perhaps, you do appear to have qualified your hypothesis by stating that it only applies in high wind speeds, but you have varied in just how high that might be. Can you please be quite specific about this? Are you proposing a theory that applies in all wind conditions or a theory that only applies above a certain wind-speed? If the latter, just what is that wind speed? Does the wind speed over which your theory applies vary with any other parameter and, if so, what is the relationship between the two?
You appear to have conceded that the weight of the chain is important at ‘low speeds’ but then dismissed the fact by saying “who cares about holding at low wind speeds?” I care. I care because 95% of my anchoring is in what you appear to classify as ‘low wind speeds’. From my personal experience, I would classify wind speeds in relation to anchoring as follows:
Low: 0 to 15 knots. Low chance of dragging. No action required after the anchor has been properly set. In a good season in the Med 60% or more of my nights come into this category.
Moderate: 15 to 30 knots. A rapidly increasing risk of dragging as the wind increases through this band. Veering extra chain is almost always successful. 30 % or more of my nights come into this category.
High: 30 knots and above. A very high risk of dragging. Considerable activity is required to make the boat safe including some or all of the following: veering all chain available extended with nylon rope if necessary, deploying a second anchor, deploying a chum, adding chafe protection and setting an anchor watch. Mercifully, less than 5% of my nights come into this category.
It is reasonable, perhaps, to ignore the ‘Low’ category, but it is not reasonable to ignore the ‘Medium’ category. It is within this range of wind speeds that most of us face real risks when at anchor and where good advice is important. For you to suggest that “the weight of the chain has nearly NO action” in such conditions is not just wrong, it is dangerously wrong.
So, for the benefit of those of us who have followed this thread so far, could you please state your hypothesis clearly and unambiguously, including the wind speeds in which it applies, so that we all know precisely what you are trying to say.
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.geocities.com/yachtretreat/>http://www.geocities.com/yachtretreat/</A>
