Is There Such a Thing as 1:1 "Scope?"

thinwater · 2024-07-15T07:52:54-0700

Re veering, the OED again has an answer. If you veiw the entries you get the complete history of usage.

[re. cable, I don't think whether the engine is used or not is part of the usage]
[ re. veering wind, a further detail in usage can be defining veering as a clockwise rotation and backing as a counter clockwise rotation, but it is not always used so strictly and the context usually makes the intent obvious (oh yeah--KG just said that)]

dLj · 2024-07-15T07:58:22-0700

thinwater said:
I'm sorry. I guess the firewall got it.

The nice thing about the on-line version (free through your public library) is that it contains ALL of the back up. A unabridged version of the OED is not a book, it is a volume that fills a room. Go to your library's page and look for it among the on-line resources. Or ask a librarian.

Yes indeed, I'm quite familiar with the huge OED. I have the unabridged version that is miniaturized. It is still two very large volumes, and requires a magnifying glass to read it. Back in my younger years, i could read it without the magnifying glass, but that is a different story ..

I tried to buy the full version a number of years ago, but the price was out of range. And indeed, the non-miniaturized edition is a whole wall...

But the local Public library suggestion is the best! When I'm back home from working on my boat down here on the Chesapeake - I'll go check it out at my library.

Many thanks!

dj

Hayden Watson · 2024-07-15T08:14:33-0700

jviss said:
That is an oversimplified model of how a rode or chain falls. It actually falls as a cateenary, and therefore is never straight, except, I suppose, when there's infinite force and infinite holding power. Which is all the better for us, as it means the part attached to the anchor is more horizontal than it would be otherwise.

jviss · 2024-07-15T08:21:03-0700

Hayden Watson said:

Thanks, but can you net it out for me? Not in the mood to watch a 21 minute, over-produced anchor video.

Hayden Watson · 2024-07-15T10:00:35-0700

jviss said:
Thanks, but can you net it out for me? Not in the mood to watch a 21 minute, over-produced anchor video.

The basic conclusion is that cantenary is real for all chain but is limited when you need it most because in the upper wind ranges, the cantenary is very small. It also provides limited shock absorption but not nearly enough to handle surge.
The conclusions start at 15:25.

thinwater · 2024-07-15T11:21:39-0700

Kings Gambit said:
Now I’m wondering whether “veering” definition includes paying out rode using the windlass down button, rather than dropping only under the chain and anchor’s weight. I have had some recent discussion comparing the two. Veering is fast; down button is slow. Sometimes really slow.

This definition is old and predates all of this. I fear we will are going down the road of forcing a word to mean what each of us wants it to mean. It just means letting out rode. You add descriptors to make it specific, like walking fast or walking uphill.

Foswick · 2024-07-15T11:54:28-0700

Not that it's relevant to the topic, but my background is in linguistics, so please forgive the digression and please don't let me hijack this thread by following me down this rabbit hole. I just want to point out that the purpose of a dictionary is to be descriptive and not prescriptive.

That is, dictionaries do not dictate the correct meaning of a word. They are an attempt to describe how the authors of the dictionary have found words to be used. People commonly think that dictionaries are the authoritative texts on the meanings of words. In fact, they are just reports of observations of usage. In other words, even though a dictionary contains definitions, it does not define words. People define words and dictionaries attempt to record those definitions.

The problem with using a dictionary as an authoritative text for terms that lean toward jargon is that the authors typically lack the knowledge in the relevant domain to adequately define a term as it is used by a particular community. The best they can do is describe how they have seen it used and try to extrapolate a general sense of meaning from that. That, and word meaning is always contextual.

For example, the term "rode" technically refers only to rope and not chain (according to most), but in certain contexts, we just use it to mean all of the flexible stuff that connects the boat to anchor.

Or, consider the term "jib". You can find definitions, but they do not match common usage. In casual reference, we tend to refer to a genoa as a "jib", though some would insist they are distinct (though arguably a genoa is a type of jib). And, historical definitions and usage of the term "jib" are not wholly satisfactory in the context of today's designs.

Or, maybe a better illustration is the pedantic assertion that there are no "ropes" on boats (though there definitely are). Yet, if ask someone, "Hey, grab that rope", there is a zero chance they will stare at you, not having a clue what you could possibly be referring to.

All this to say what Thinwater kind of alluded to: A word means pretty much what two people agree that it means in a given context.

OK ... that said ... we sailors do love our jargon, and having a secret language is part of what defines us as a community. And, debating the meaning of that jargon is also part of the community - much like discussing the minutiae of anchoring theory.

dLj · 2024-07-15T12:31:27-0700

Well, the above does depend upon application. There are dictionaries that are used as definitive sources to the meanings of words - legal cases come to mind as a first case.

Clearly no such source exists in the nautical world.

dj

dLj · 2024-07-15T12:39:47-0700

Hayden Watson said:
The basic conclusion is that cantenary is real for all chain but is limited when you need it most because in the upper wind ranges, the cantenary is very small. It also provides limited shock absorption but not nearly enough to handle surge.
The conclusions start at 15:25.

Catenary is real for all types of rode, an all rope rode would be minimal as wind increases, mixed chain and rope rode gets pretty interesting, and of course all chain rode is the exemplar.

Shock loading with all chain is the reason to use snubbers or other forms of adding in elasticity. So if an all chain rode is used per current accepted usage then the models running just all chain are flawed. It's more likely to be a form of chain/rope rode model.

Not that it's going to make any difference to my anchoring technique. No way I'm going less than 3:1....

dj

thinwater · 2024-07-15T12:40:31-0700

Foswick said:
Not that it's relevant to the topic, but my background is in linguistics, so please forgive the digression and please don't let me hijack this thread by following me down this rabbit hole. I just want to point out that the purpose of a dictionary is to be descriptive and not prescriptive.

That is, dictionaries do not dictate the correct meaning of a word. They are an attempt to describe how the authors of the dictionary have found words to be used. People commonly think that dictionaries are the authoritative texts on the meanings of words. In fact, they are just reports of observations of usage. In other words, even though a dictionary contains definitions, it does not define words. People define words and dictionaries attempt to record those definitions.

The problem with using a dictionary as an authoritative text for terms that lean toward jargon is that the authors typically lack the knowledge in the relevant domain to adequately define a term as it is used by a particular community. The best they can do is describe how they have seen it used and try to extrapolate a general sense of meaning from that. That, and word meaning is always contextual.

For example, the term "rode" technically refers only to rope and not chain (according to most), but in certain contexts, we just use it to mean all of the flexible stuff that connects the boat to anchor.

Or, consider the term "jib". You can find definitions, but they do not match common usage. In casual reference, we tend to refer to a genoa as a "jib", though some would insist they are distinct (though arguably a genoa is a type of jib). And, historical definitions and usage of the term "jib" are not wholly satisfactory in the context of today's designs.

Or, maybe a better illustration is the pedantic assertion that there are no "ropes" on boats (though there definitely are). Yet, if ask someone, "Hey, grab that rope", there is a zero chance they will stare at you, not having a clue what you could possibly be referring to.

All this to say what Thinwater kind of alluded to: A word means pretty much what two people agree that it means in a given context.

OK ... that said ... we sailors do love our jargon, and having a secret language is part of what defines us as a community. And, debating the meaning of that jargon is also part of the community - much like discussing the minutiae of anchoring theory.

I think the point I most meant to make is that in the case of a disagreement or confusion, a good first step is to look at a few dictionaries and discuss whether the definition is suitable and a majority agree with it. Spouting off opinions often just leads in circles. For example, I've been involved in a number of technical committees that wrote international standards. Often, it seemed useful to define terms. Authors frequently would get frankly lazy, and just write down what they though the word ought to mean. But the problem quickly arises that every standard defines a word differently, and unless you read the definitions section every time, you may not know that the word has a very specific, narrow meaning in a specific document. Science relies on concise language. Instead, the policy was/is that a new definition of the word will only be entered in the definitions section of a standard if the dictionary definition is not suitable and no other simple combination of words is suitable. The dictionary definition could, of course, be included if it seemed helpful to insure clarity of nomenclature, but it would be unchanged.

In the case of sailing we mix archaic language with modern English and the result can be muddy. When in doubt, try a dictionary before you try your buddies. If the dictionary still feels wrong, then perhaps you will be a part of evolving a new definition. But it is my feeling that if we are going to use archaic language (veer, rode, etc.) in place of modern English (let-out or rope or chain), then we ought to respect the archaic origins. Otherwise we just babble (meaning drawn from the Tower of Babble, not implying ignorance) and can't understand each other.

---
I'm a lowly engineer ("Five years ago I din't know how to spell enginer and now I are one"), but the use of a dictionary and style guides has been beaten into me by magazine and book editors, mostly related to sailing. We're not linguists, but we do aim for consistent readability. When I use a dictionary I avoid most big disagreements and can defend the rest. In fact, I try to avoid jargon if I don't think it adds clarity. I would say I "let out" 100 feet of rode, and if the rode were combination, I would say that it was comprised of "20 feet of chain and 200 feet of rope." Same thing in my day job.

kappykaplan · 2024-07-15T13:10:01-0700

Kings Gambit said:
You can solve the jib/Genoa problem by recognizing that each is a type of headsail.