New America

And now from the same guy, "Many people suggested changing the name of New Mexico, one of the great vote cheating states of all time, to NEW AMERICA. So much more prestigious and beautiful for the people of that potentially incredible State. Wow, I Love It!!!"

Third-grade diction and multiple mistakes. A sub-adolescent taunt, on both Truth Social and the White House X account, obviously intended to distract. "Look at me, holding this shiny ball." People fall for that. And of course, no one in the White House is embarrassed, or rather, they won't show it. I guess, working in (some positions-- there are many very good people) the White House is embarrassing on the face of it these days. 

This is disappointing, disturbing, and frankly terrifying. We have an unstable man with his finger on the button.

 ---

I promise, the next post will be about sailing. But there comes a point when keeping quiet is complicity. This is not OK.

Gulf of America. Lake America.

The President is now pretending that he can change the name of Lake Ontario by signing an executive order, the obvious result being another humiliation United States citizens on the world stage. He ebarrasses himself once again, but is increasingly oblivious to the obvious. Let's just call it what it is.

Diminished mental capacity. 

America was strong. Past tense. Now we are medium and trending downwards. It's hard to be strong with no friends.

 ---- 

 Just as with the Gulf of America change, Google Maps went right along with this embarrassing change. Wimps.

 I prefer Mapquest anyway. Use Mapquest.

Charging Lithium

 A year ago, I made the leap to lithium (LiFePO4). My lead AGM gave up the ghost, the result of a failed solar panel allowing it to go flat for too long. It was also long in the tooth. I wrenched my shoulder maneuvering it out of its hold, which was horribly located, so the decision was significantly based on its being half the weight. 

 I'd read up on lithium. I picked one that had been vetted by a battery expert I trust. The BMS (battery management system) would cut off charging below freezing, which can be an issue for me. We've all been told that charging below freezing is bad, resulting in lithium plating. But ...

1. 32F has no particular significance to a system that does not contain water. It sounds like just a number that is easy to remember.
2. I have read in several places that, in fact, it is a soft number, and that what matters is tapering off the charge rate at low temperatures. That at some low rate, charging in the cold is non-damaging. 

One source said 0.05C (5% of battery capacity) may be considered safe. My panel can only charge 0.025C on the best of days, and typically more like 0.010C in the winter, when this would matter. 

 C= charging rate/capacity. Many of the studies were done at C=1 to 3, meaning that a battery could be fully recharged in 20-60 minutes. That's FAST for solar systems. I doubt many sailors can recharge the bank in less than 5 hours, and most, more like 10-20 hours (C=0.1 to 0.05).

 

 

It's never clear how far you can extrapolate data without more  testing, but it seems clear from the above graph that at very low charging rates, the effect of temperature on plating (low temperatures) and side reactions (high temperatures) are much less than at common charging rates. While it is convenient to repower you EV, cell phone, or device in an hour or less (C=1 to 3), that has no application to sailors charging from solar (C=0.1 to 0.05 or less). I'm guessing that curve is pretty flat, and that even if it is not, the cycles at C=0.025 at 32 F are probably better than C=1 at 20C. 

 

How about those apples? Nothing for sailors to worry about. 

 

Someone asked about copper fouling

They seemed to think that copper oxide or copper oxychloride were somehow different, because. obviously, bronze props foul. 

These pipes were in the water for a year. The only one with no hard grow (zero) is the plain pipe with no anode. 

Where did they think the idea of copper sheathing came from? 

 I think they slept through chemistry class. 

 

Does it feel like current events in the middle east were PLANNED to perminantly close the Straights of Homuz ...

 ... to the sole benefit of US Big Oil? I think so. This seems ... obvious.

We have radicalized countless people in the Gaza and Iran. How could we not have? With the rise of drone-based munitions, it won't take much to harass most anything, forever, including the Straights. You don't have to close them air tight to convince shippers to make other plans and to increase shipping costs. That is all that is needed.

Drawing out the war in the Ukraine serves the same purpose; US oil and LNG exports to Europe have surged. The longer it lasts, the hotter it gets, the longer it will take for Europe and Russia to normalize relations.

It seems we have intentionally created a new "warm" war, that won't end, at the cost of many lives, at huge cost to the taxpayer,  to the sole benefit of Big Oil.

 ----

 I can see this. It seems ... Obvious. The only alternative is that Donald Trumps is massively stupid. Possible. But I think corrupt and self-serving is far more plausible and likely.

 Can we afford such intentional mismanagement of world events? Forget your politics. By the time all is said and done, your PERSONAL share is going to be a new car. Bullshit.

A Little Known Cameo from the Sixth Sence

 Sorry. I couldn't help myself.

Eagle at the Masthead

Bald eagles were very nearly extinct when I was a boy. The first one I saw in wild was under a bridge in my 20s. Now they have become so common as to become destructive pests in the marina. 

  

 

This bird was less damaging (1" = 1' scale model of my F-24, made from rebar and 3/16" wire):

 

 

The carnage: I'm not anti-eagle, but For the last two years I've given up on wind instruments aloft, after replacing two vanes, only to have them destroyed. I've been using shroud ribbons and bow vanes, which work very well.

  

 

Paint Mixer / Stir

The ones they sell at the store are for lightweight paints that only need a lightweight re-mix.  They are not for heavy anti-fouling paints that have settled copper. They can handle high viscosity and they are a bear to clean.

 I had to mix 30 paints for this project.

 

 

My go-to mixer for most paints is NOT the commercial version (left), but the simple paddle turbine (right), common in labs and industry, but not at paint stores. I have access to all sorts of mixers and sometimes fabricate my own. The one on the right is best. Also, notice how easily it is wiped clean (it's been used hundreds of times, maybe more). I've made small ones to fit into touch-up and craft paint jars. Start in the middle, work your way down and around, and tilt occasionally to mix top-to-bottom. Very fast to mix heavy stuff, and easy to wipe clean. 

 

 

 

 

 

Corsair 760 Speed Polar

 Not an F-24 (a bit faster), but relatable.

 [Note. This was generated by a velocity prediction program, not testing, so that is that. Typically, they are optimistic, assuming flat water, perfect sails, an empty boat, and  glass-smooth hull with no anti-fouling paint. You can subtract 0.5-1 knots, depending on the point of sail, although I've been very close to this.]

 

Point of Sail

We've all seen the graphic below, in some form. The right side shows the point in terms of apparent wind (direction indicated by a flag on the boat), and the left side shows the true direction, sometimes indicated by waves. The right side is traditional. 

First, the obvious "error." Directions are all in terms of apparent wind, except for close-hauled. And the first thing we see, right at the top, is a 90-degree no-sail zone based on true wind, not apparent wind. An agreed-upon misrepresentation. The actual apparent wind when close-hauled is more like 26-35 degrees, depending on conditions and the boat, so the chart cheats on that one.  Why? Because the term close hauled does not tell us where we are going, which apparently matters. 

The second problem is that of clarity. On most boats, basing it on apparent wind makes sense, we think. That is what you trim for. But in the case of a performance catamaran sailing close-hauled, if we simply bear off 10-30 degrees, boat speed doubles, the sails don't really need re-trimmed, though we could crack the sheets a few inches for best speed. We are now sailing at 80 degrees to the true wind. The apparent wind has moved aft a little (not much). But as far as the chart is concerned, we are still close-hauled, in terms of sheet position
 and apparent wind. Bear off a few degrees more (90-100 true), we crack the sheets just a little (the traveler is still centered), and soon we find ourselves sailing at 18 knots with the apparent wind little different than it was close-hauled. A slower boat, on the other hand, is clearly on a close reach. 

If we turn another 45 degrees and put up the (flat) chute, the apparent wind is still well forward of the bow, between a close reach and a beam reach, but we are sailing over windspeed, the main is still sheeted close, and the traveler down only 6 to 12 inches. In fact, we seldom sail deeper that this. The apparent wind is never aft of the beam, so strictly speaking, we never sail on a broad reach or down wind. That seems odd, since that "close reach" is our fastest VMG downwind course.  A slower boat, of course, will have the wind aft of the beam, the boom well-eased, and will use the vang to keep the boom down. Coincidentally, this catamaran does not have a vang; it doesn't need one.

----

On my first beach catamaran (faster than the roto-molded beach rental stuff they sell now) I learned to call courses by the true wind direction.  My second boat, a turboed Stiletto 27 (saw 24 knots once, not surfing), was just as fast. Both were faster than the wind on any reaching course. Through several more boats, I have kept this nomenclature. So have my multihull-sailing buddies. 

• Windward/Close Hauled. The same either way. As high as you can go with good speed.
• Beam Reach. True wind on the beam, sails pretty tight, going fast.
• Broad Reach.  True wind on the quarter, apparent wind on the beam to well forward. Maybe a chute, with the traveler down a little. Maybe a jib, Barberhauled out and forward and the traveler well down.
• Dead-Down-Wind. Main and jib are wing-and-wing. There is no reason to sail a course between wind on the beam and wing-and-wing, because the flow does not attach and they are all slower than dead-down-wind, wing-and-wing. 

 

 

Next I sailed a cruising cat (PDQ 32/34, but it was also turboed, much faster than the condomarans you see creeping around (I never pushed it past 14 knots, but I think there was a good bit left). My current ride is a Corsair F-24 MKI trimaran, slower than the first two, but faster than the PDQ (I've seen 16-18 knots with the reacher many times).

 ---

But even if I transitioned to slower boats, and even when I'm sailing with reefs I don't need and going slow, in my head I still use the same true-wind-based nomenclature system. It relates to where I'm going in relation to the wind, not how I've set the sails, and that makes more sense to me. I know how to set the sails for best speed.

To each his own. I've always found the apparent wind-based system misleading in both the close reach and broad reach realms.  To me, it's a beam reach when the true wind is striking the beam, whether we're well trimmed and moving or sitting still. For example, I'm sitting still, with sails out and flogging. The apparent wind is on the beam. As I sheet in and the boat accelerates, and without turning one degree, I will go through beam reach, close reach, and very nearly close hauled without changing sails or course. What do I tell the helmsman? "Keep the true wind on the beam" or "beam reach." The latter seems simpler. A close reach means nearly close hauled. A broad reach means apparent wind on the beam for best downwind VMG. Obviously, if I mean a compass course, I can say that, but more often the rule is "broad reach, as she goes," meaning keep the wind on the beam and the sails drawing as set. Since we never sail a broad reach based on apparent wind or downwind, what use are those terms to me? None.

---

I guess I'm wrong. To me, this is more clear.