Very Long Response
Sorry about the lack of explanation in my last posting. I was somewhat shocked to find out that you suddenly agreed with my diagrams, even though you did not like them. I will address your comments one by one. You said "As previously stated, your initial illustration was correct, but it didn't illustrate as clearly as the animation, that the net displacement of water particles is zero." After reviewing your previous comments I found the following "We ll, I hafta disagree that they are the same…". "That’s actually not a very good illustration." I guess I must have overlooked the part where you said "your initial illustration was correct". Likewise your statement "To continue to ask that the old and new illustration be printed and viewed….etc is moot, so let's move beyond that issue." Again I fail to see where you agreed to anything prior to this particular response. You state "..that the net displacement of all water particles in the wave = zero, and that’s a pretty important part of this discussion." The net displacement is zero. All of the particles just go around in a circle. My contention was and still is that there is a forward motion of the water in the crest as seen in my diagrams. It is not always the same particle. The "old" particles fall behind the wave to join a new wave and to be replaced by new ones. Also this would tend to be true even for a sailboat, or just about any other boat which is small enough to be moved around by the wave. There would be no net movement of the boat. What makes the sailboat different is that it is moved forward propelled by the sail. Since the water is moving in the same direction as the sailboat, but slower than the sailboat or wave, it does not get an added boost, it just has to move at a slower speed relative to the water. You state "..if the vessel is in the trough between the waves, that the net water particle direction is opposite to the direction of the wave, AND surfing vessel." That is absolutely true. I failed to realize that the surfing took place in the trough. Never having surfed, I assumed that the surfing took place on the crest and leading edge of the wave. You state "Additionally, that the vessel doesn't accelerate dramatically when the vessel and the wind driven wind direction is opposite, when the vessel is in the trough (region of the particle motion moving in the positive direction), also contradicts the direct particle motion impact theory." This is obviously not talking about surfing. What you have is a boat moving at, say 6k moving through a wave moving the opposite direction at, say 10k. That would be a 16 knot closure. With a wave almost 56 feet long (required for a 10k speed), the boat would be in the counter flow less than 1.2 seconds. That is not a lot of time for the boat to do anything. You state "If this were the case (referring to the flow of water on the surface water), really light objects would be swept away by even small waves." That is not true. A small object including a boat, not aided by the wind or some other power, would rotate in a circle just like the "blue dot(s)" it is floating on. Even though the water particles in the top part of the wave are moving forward, generally they are moving slower than the wave. Thus, they move to the back and follow the rotation of the blue dot. You state "Whereas, if the acceleration were due to water particle movement in the wind wave, when the full wave length is in contact with the hull, the net force would be zero, and the vessel wouldn't move any faster." I agree. If the boat is not riding the crest or the crest plus the top part of the leading edge of the wave, my theory breaks down. You further state "It does". If the wave length is about the same length as the boat, then there would be no benefit from surfing. You would be limited by the wave speed, except for very short periods. You state "The key issue at hand, that has yet to be resolved, is that the basic premise that this particle motion is what causes the vessel to exceed hull speed is flawed, as indicated by the number of conditions detailed in my previous post, where that model doesn't fit reality." I think I have addressed all of the issues you mentioned. In addition, the model is based the one you pointed out. All I did was clarify it and show that there is a wave induced forward current in the top of the wave. Where you appear to be hung up is that there is no net water displacement. The key is that that current at the top of the wave is continually fed by new water particles which move up and add to the current and then continue their rotation and form a counter current. If you remain near the top of the crest there is a forward moving current. You state "Instead, a displacement hull accelerate is due to the wind driven water wave modulating with the hull created bow/stern wave, which causes the motion of the two waves (not the motion of the water within the waves) to slide in relation to the actual water surface". Frankly I can't figure out what you are trying to say. Modulating means to adjustor adapt to a certain proportion, regulate, temper. The best I can get out of it is that the hull created wave reacts with the wind created wave and causes the two waves to slide in relation to the actual water surface. I would like to see a reference, link, or better explanation because I don't have a clue how that explains anything. You state "However, that the wind driven and vessel created waves modulate, to a higher net speed than the vessel wave alone, still holds water (sorry for pun), under all conditions, including the loss of rudder control." Again I don't know what you are trying to say. Also, somehow this lack of explanation also explains loss of rudder control. My explanation explains lack of rudder control. I am not sure how your explanation explains loss of rudder control. If your experience with surfing took place in the trough, then you were right. My model does not fit your experience. However, it would appear that a boat could surf on the wave crest and forward part of the wave and not be hindered by the counter flow in the trough.
