Against My Better Judgement
The biggest mystery you will find in this response, is why am I bothering? For one thing Rod’s response to Billy bothered me for a couple of reasons. First what does the title, “Hey Billy, ya ever been to sea?” imply? Does it mean that if you haven’t been to sea that you don’t have good sense? The second thing about Rod’s response was that in spite of the fact that you used in excess of 500 words, you failed to actually explain anything. I can almost make an exception to his explanation on hull speed. The biggest problem with the explanation is that there are other formulas for hull speeds that will provide a different answer.I would like to concentrate my response on whether there is forward motion of the water on the face of the wave. Let me go over most of your (Rod’s) argument. Reference the graphics in your 12/12 4:49PM response. The first is an link which shows moving waves and a stationary rotor. If you note, part of the time the rotor is not in the water. What, I believe, the graphic is trying to show is that the rotor travels with the wave. This being the case, there is clearly forward motion of the water on the face of the wave. If you don’t assume that the rotor is moving forward with the wave, the graphic makes absolutely no sense.The second link shows a number of lines with barbs on them. If you will look at an individual barb, you will notice that it is moving in a rotary motion, which shows forward motion of the water. There is no net transport of the water, however, there is a forward motion of the water on the surface of the wave. The other argument was “that it simply is not true”, which is not an explanation.Now just a short note in response to John, “My Lake, My Rules”. For some of you, who may not remember, some time ago, I started a thread on ways to save money while sailing. It finally ended up in an argument about line. I used, and still do use, inexpensive polypropylene line from Home Depot and other discount hardwares. One of the parts of the discussion came down to why I would want to use polypropylene line. If you will take a look at Western Marine, you will find that a number of expensive lines such as Regatta and Sta-Set use polypropylene. I believe there are several differences between, the expensive line and the less expensive line. The first is quality. I sometimes find flaws. Another is the line is usually not as soft. There are probably others including the little anchor on the package, which automatically adds 100% to the retail cost. The strength of the less expensive lines is more than adequate and since I am never out of sight of land, on my lake, I don’t believe it is a threat to myself or the other boaters if a halyard or sheet breaks. It is a minor inconvenience. The other “My Lake, My Rules” issue is red oak. If you check references on red oak, you will find that it has no natural decay resistance. However, for some reason, much of it has lasted for many years. Red oak is the most common hardwood. It has been used for wooden plows, wooden horse pulled wagons and wagon wheels. I will have to admit that I just replaced the wooden handles on an old plow. I found the old plow in the woods buried under leaves and other debris. I have an old wagon and several wooden wheels in my yard, which are easily over a half century old and I was told they were red oak.. I am not sure what kind of unnatural treatment, those pieces of wood received when they were new. They are well weathered, but solid. I revarnish the wood trim on my boat about every two years. I am pulling my boat out of this water this spring. I will remove all of the wood trim (red oak) and revarnish it. I am not doing this because the wood is degrading. I am doing it because the varnish is starting to peal. Bottom line. I like the appearance of red oak, it is inexpensive in this area and, if protected, it will last for many years. Darn, I let that word “inexpensive” creep in again.