Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Delancey

Nice try, too bad your modern plough is connected with a three point linkage, NOT chain or cable. Can't push on a rope, maybe you missed that day in design school. That three point linkage controls the angle of attack, try that with a chain. But seriously, good effort! Nice try.

Scooter, you really want to debate agriculture with me? I suspect the closest you've ever gotten to farming is picking up poo from your Maltese Terrier in Central Park. Push on a rope? Whaaaa?

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by congo

something is better than nothing when it comes to safety.

Not at all.
Something *better* is better than nothing.
One of the most damaging statements in human history is,
"We *must* do *SOMETHING*!"

It's a bit like the old adage,
"Practice makes perfect."
But of course, practising something wrong
merely increases the ability to do the wrong thing proficiently.
In fact, only practising perfection makes perfect.

- Shas

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by Shas Cho

Not at all.
Something *better* is better than nothing.
One of the most damaging statements in human history is,
"We *must* do *SOMETHING*!"

It's a bit like the old adage,
"Practice makes perfect."
But of course, practising something wrong
merely increases the ability to do the wrong thing proficiently.
In fact, only practising perfection makes perfect.

- Shas

Shas Cho,
I really like the way you think.

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

The classification societies should clamp down when an anchor manufacturer claims certification that is bogus

I don't know about that, Jonathan.
It would be convenient for the consumer,
but enforcement of false advertising claims
is not the mandate of certification societies.
And our law enforcement protects corporations rather than consumers.
Hence the tedious, dire warnings of international prosecution
for anyone tempted to copy a movie on DVD.
(this is where I bang *my* head on the wall)



[/QUOTE] anchor manufacturers don't help because they are concerned that when the consumer understands some of the details of certification we will be less impressed with the the sticker that says Super High Holding Power [/QUOTE]

No doubt about it.
Naive consumers think that certification
ensures their anchor's ability to hold them in a blow,
when it might merely indicate approval for the welding of a joint
or the relative contents of an alloy.

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Shas Cho,
I really like the way you think.

Thanks, brother.
That makes one of you

[Coops]

At least two to be honest. And the way that you write it.

Coops.

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by Delfin

A Rocna type anchor will develop no compression of the sea bed from what is going on under the fluke, while an Ultra and a Spade will. By design.

Yet the Rocna and Spade tend to yield very similar results
in many of the anchor tests.
How strange.
Any ideas on how this can be?
(I'm a satisfied Spade owner, remember)

[Shas Cho]

[QUOTE=Delfin;1403019]As has already been pointed out, a farm plow requires a depth wheel to keep the thing on the surface. Otherwise, it will dive out of sight, stop plowing and your tractor will come to a halt./QUOTE]

As I pointed out at that time,
a depth wheel is *not* required to control depth of penetration.
That is a relatively recent (technological revolution) invention
to allow less skilled farmers to plow at a uniform depth.
prior to the depth wheel the depth was determined
by the angle of the plow tip as
controlled by the angle of the lever handle
at the rear of the plough.

On an anchor this lever is at the front of the boat
and is generally being pulled upwards by the rode.
Upwards being the direction
which steers the plow towards the surface.
If one could position the boat *below* the anchor,
*then* the plough would dive indefinitely.

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by Coops

At least two to be honest. And the way that you write it.

Coops.

Aw, shucks.
*looking down, scuffing deck with my toes*

[Coops]

Originally Posted by Shas Cho

Aw, shucks.
*looking down, scuffing deck with my toes*

Yeah, right. Bashfulness may become you, but I doubt that it is a regular part of your natural charm.

Coops.

[noelex 77]

One (or two) of these anchors works not only better (which I can understand), but apparently in a completely differently way to the others.

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Scooter, you really want to debate agriculture with me? I suspect the closest you've ever gotten to farming is picking up poo from your Maltese Terrier in Central Park. Push on a rope? Whaaaa?

Pookie wouldn't like what you said, I shielded his ears.

Can't push on a rope? It's a polite designer way of saying that the assertion that a convex shape inherently wants to dig to China with such veracity that it needs something to hold it back (except somehow for the mystical CQR) is flawed.

In simple terms, be it beam to plowshare or shank to fluke, a lever is needed provide the rotational moment necessary to achieve the desired angle of attack. A lever by definition is a rigid member that acts both in tension and compression at the same time to effect work. Can't push on a rope.

By your logic all that is needed to attach plough to tractor is chain or cable, then why the three point linkage which is capable of accommodating both tensile and compressive forces?

With the shank, it is at the same time pushing down on the tip while pulling at the back to get the anchor to set. The shape of the fluke, be it convex or whatever, has nothing to do with it.

In fact if you sight down the long axis of a convex fluke, what you see is a triangle with a wide base in the front, that tapers to a point in the back. Sort of what an arrowhead would look like if you turned it backwards. Go figure.

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

One (or two) of these anchors works not only better (which I can understand), but apparently in a completely differently way to the others.

The one with the bottle opener gets my vote!!!

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Delancey

The one with the bottle opener gets my vote!!!

That is the Fob Rock, actually it is a good to very good anchor.
All joking aside the humble Delta is a good anchor and can certainly be improved upon, but I wish manufacturers would stop claiming that their anchor works in a radical new way. The Delta can be tweaked and improved upon and this can lead to significantly better performance, but I don't see any justification for claiming a radical departure in way the anchor fundamentally works.

There seems to some correlation to anchors of this type working better with a longer thinner fluke. The skids as on the Fob Rock or the Kingsington quickset also seem helpful. The Excel and Kobra achieve a similar effect with the broader heel on the fluke. These features set up a more aggressive initial set which is helpful in harder substrates and weed. I also like the the aggressive downturned turned tip on the Excel.

We should not make the mistake of thinking because they look similar at first glance they will all perform identically, but we should also not be fooled that they are a fundamentally a new and radical concept. The truth lies somewhere in between.

[Delfin]

[QUOTE=Shas Cho;1403139]

Originally Posted by Delfin

As has already been pointed out, a farm plow requires a depth wheel to keep the thing on the surface. Otherwise, it will dive out of sight, stop plowing and your tractor will come to a halt./QUOTE]

As I pointed out at that time,
a depth wheel is *not* required to control depth of penetration.
That is a relatively recent (technological revolution) invention
to allow less skilled farmers to plow at a uniform depth.
prior to the depth wheel the depth was determined
by the angle of the plow tip as
controlled by the angle of the lever handle
at the rear of the plough.

On an anchor this lever is at the front of the boat
and is generally being pulled upwards by the rode.
Upwards being the direction
which steers the plow towards the surface.
If one could position the boat *below* the anchor,
*then* the plough would dive indefinitely.

I've spent many happy hours on a tractor and I can assure you that is not correct. See pictures below for examples of a typical 19th century single bottom mold board and a similar dated furrower. The horse's behind would be above the plow, and all designs that I am familiar with still require something to keep the moldboard from going too deep. If you're talking a 2 bottom, you can set the control depth just with the 3 point. If a large roll over like in the picture below, you need the wheels you see on the plow to keep the whole thing from disappearing underground. If a horsedrawn, the little wheels you see in the images attached.

Picking nits, a CQR is not an analog for a plow, but a furrower. The former turns soil over, and yes, needs a gauge wheel like the one shown in this video to keep from deeply burying itself.

2 CYL. JOHN DEERE TRACTORS PLOWING tubalcain - YouTube

A furrower just cuts a groove in the soil, and doesn't dive particularly well, although it also needs something to keep it digging along at a constant depth. Furrowers aren't used much, except for cutting drainage channels during the winter. The CQR doesn't work that well as an anchor compared to alternatives because its shape simply cuts a furrow. A 3rd generation diving anchor is designed to avoid that deficiency.