HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jn163051@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Joel Nevison)
Subject: Re: inverter and battery use
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:56:11 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College
Keywords: inverter dc battery life

In article <mshulman.18.725765468@genghis.borland.com> mshulman@genghis.borland.com (Michael Shulman) writes:
>Hello, all:
>
>My brother just took delivery of a Catalina 36 with 3 deep cycle 900 A/H 
>batteries and an inverter. Since he's interested in "Creature Comforts", 
>he's outfitted the boat with
>   color tv
>   vcr
>   microwave oven
>   AC track lights
>etc.
>
>I wanted to help him be able to estimate the amount of life he can expect 
>from his batteries. I told him that since P = I * E
>	where P is power in watts
>	and I is current in amps
>        and E is voltage,
>
>that his running his 600W microwave for 1 hr at 110V (which takes approx 6A/
>H, right), that if we estimate the efficiency of his inverter at 50% (pretty 
Look at the tag on the microwave, it may put 600W into your food while
drawing 750W from your AC supply.
>conservative), that he should be able to run his microwave for 37 hours, 
>even using only half the charge of his batteries:
>
>         microwave takes: 6A/H
>         inverter 50% efficiency: 12A/H
>         battery (50% of total): 450A/H
>         so, you can get 37 hours.
>
>But then I thought, that can't be right. Intuitively, it seems like it 
>should be closer to 3 or 4 hours.
>
>What am I doing wrong in my calculations?

You are not taking into account the fact that the inverter changes the voltage.
to provide 6 amps at, lets say 120V, takes 60 amps at 12V, or factoring in
your 50% efficiency, it would take 120 amps.   I suspect your inverter is better
than 50% efficient. you can check it if you have an amp meter for your battery.
Power conservation is a big deal on sailboats.   Nobody likes
to run the iron donkey any more than they have to, especially just sitting at 
anchor.   My dad's boat (Brewer 44) has a bunch of 12v fluorescent's for 
lighting that are pretty efficient, but because we have many appliances,
experience has taught us that we need to keep conservation in mind always.
Knowing that the inverter is inefficient, and sucks the battery down quick
we are especially careful to use 120V stuff sparingly.   I bet that track 
lighting system will be a real hog.
Regards  -Joel
--
 Substitution mass confusion /         Joel Nevison
    Clouds inside my head   / jn163051@longs.lance.colostate.edu
From: rmr@csmes.ncsl.nist.gov (Robert Rosenthal)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Freedom 21 (unstayed cat boats)
Keywords: Sail, Cat, Carbon Fiber
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:40:46 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards & Technology


I recently acquired a Freedom 21 in great shape but it needs a little work
on the carbon fiber mast.  Anyone ever drill and rivit into one.  Main track
is loose.  I also need a spinnaker.  I have the gun mount, yard, and shoot.

Rob Rosenthal
From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Celestial Navigation Question
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:31:06 GMT
Organization: New York University, School of Medicine
NNTP-Posting-Host: mchip00.med.nyu.edu

omalley@kleber.ics.uci.edu (Owen O'Malley) writes:
> why they don't take the bearing to the celestial object to determine their
> location on the circle of position. Surely, adding a handheld compass to a
> sextant wouldn't be difficult and it would allow a fix based on a single
> celestial object. Is this ever done? Is there a good reason why not or is
> it just tradition?

	I wondered about that when I first learned celestial too.  I think
the answer is just that you can measure an altitude with a sextant a lot
more accurately than you can measure an azimuth with a compass.  A sextant
gives you a differential measurement; i.e. the image of the horizon and the
body you are sighting move together in the scope; this makes it easy to get
altitudes to a whole minute with a sextant, even on a moving vessel (most
people read to 1/10th or 2/10ths of a minute, although it's not clear that
resolution is warrented).

	How many magnetic compasses do you know where you can accurately
read bearings to a whole degree (or that you trust have been adjusted
properly to give that sort of accuracy even if you could read them to that
precision).  For a typical sighting with an altitude of 45 degrees, you have
a COP with a radius of 3000 miles; an error in azimuth of 1 degree would
give you an error in position of 52 miles (assuming I've done my spherical
geometry correctly, which is doubtful, but you get the idea).

	It just occurred to me that the whole Marq St. Hillare (or however
you spell his name) method with assumed positions and altitude intercepts
pretty much depends on the radii of the COP's being large enough that the
azimuth from your actual position and your assumed position to the GP of the
body are essentialy the same.
-- 
Roy Smith <roy@nyu.edu>
Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202
NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
"This never happened to Bart Simpson."
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: fritzz@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu (fritz zaucker)
Subject: Price for 1986 J-24
Originator: fritzz@ko.ldgo.columbia.edu
Organization: Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, Columbia University, New
	York
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:48:59 GMT


Hi,

is 15k a reasonable price for a 1986 J-24, supposedly in good shape,
but with worn out sails (including trailer)?

Thanks,
Fritz
From: myoung@digi.lonestar.org (Michael Young)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Any Submarines out there?
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:20:32 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <92355.002112U61474@uicvm.uic.edu> U61474@uicvm.uic.edu (MATT HUNSAKER) writes:
>I read rec.boats from time to time, with a sort of passing interest.  I just
>wondered if there were any other submarine owners out there.  If there are,
>drop me a note.
>
>A little note for those of you that have been boarded, the coasties won't
>bother you if you just submerge!
>
>About a year and  a half ago, we were playing in the water down off Key West
>with the sub( 12 ft long). We were right in the middle of a dive when our
>surface tender (speed boat with other IL boys on it) announced that the Coast
>Guard was boarding them.  Never tell the Coast Guard you are waiting for your
>submarine to come back, and never let your friends ride in the tender when they
>say whatever question comes to mind...
>
>--our experience,  never, never, ask the coasties,  "What,  are you guys like
>security guards for the NAVY?" ... or "Do those dirigible things by our hotel
>in Key West have Helium or Hydrogen in them...OH, you guys probably don't know,
> that's the drug dudes right?"."What do you guys make/hour?"..."Do you guys
>SCUBA or just like board boats all day?"..."Bummer job!!"..."Do you ever get to
>shoot people?"...  and the final unappreciated comment buy Roger "I could be a
>Coast Guard guy"-Chalmers,   "You guys want a Pepsi before you go...or do you
>have a pop machine on your boat?"  Yes,"Do you guys have a pop machine on your
>BOAT?".......          ---Roger Chalmers, Spring Break 1991--Key West, FL
>                             ...Yes, he does have a valid drivers license!
>
>-Matt
>
>.
>
>MATT HUNSAKER   ~~~~~~~~~___100       ..            __  |__
>DIVING RESEARCH GROUP        ___200  >->O      . .__L L_|L L__
>HOME OF THE SPORTSMAN 300 MINISUB___300FT   . .[+(____________)
>E-MAIL:U61474@UICVM   (815)399-1615                _________/
>STUDENT, U OF IL COLLEGE OF MEDICINE

Thanks for posting this.  It's about time we had a good chuckle in this
group.  Now I'm in a much better mood to face the day.

Fair winds and far places....
-- 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
T. Micheal Young  "WindRider"  H-18 13755
myoung@digi.lonestar.org
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: dsmith@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (David R. Smith)
Subject: Re: Mercruiser questions
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:24:34 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Palo Alto,CA

In article <725208595.AA00037@ship.wimsey.bc.ca> Dan.Hannah@f764.n153.z1.ship.wimsey.bc.ca (Dan Hannah) writes:
> GP> My boat has a strange tendency to "fishtail"...
>
>Try this:  DON'T CORRECT it when it wanders.  Sounds goofy, but if you just
>let her go where she wants, she'll seems to straighten right out.  The thing
>I think I was doing was overcorrecting.  It is weird, but true.  Anyone else
>have this experience?

Certainly.  I don't worry about it unless I am in or approaching tight
quarters.  But I have no problem with overcorrecting.  I can keep my boat
quite straight by slowly steering back and forth against the oscillation.

I believe that the cause is the shedding of alternate vortices from the
stern of the boat.  With a deep-sitting stern and square cut-off transom,
the water fills in behind the boat by welling up or rolling in from the
side.  The pure upwelling component does not affect directional stability,
but the components coming in from the sides interact to form the alternating
vortices you have probably seen in science shows depicting wind tunnel
tests.  As one vortex detaches to be replaced by its opposite counterpart,
the side force on the stern switches direction.

I wonder if the fishtailing could be tamed by a design which has a
substantial radiusing of the transom's joint with the bottom and sides,
coupled with a shallow step to allow water to cleanly separate while on
plane.  In a boat with integral swim platform, the bottom of the platform
could be lowered to meet the stern near its bottom.

-- 
David R. Smith, HP Labs |   "I like to get my hands dirty,
dsmith@hpl.hp.com       |   because it stimulates my mind."
(415) 857-7898          |        -- Irwin Sobel
From: pavlov@niktow.canisius.edu (Greg Pavlov)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Coast Guard Boating Tax, NOT!
Date: 21 Dec 92 09:24:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo NY. 14208

In article <1992Dec18.021744.2711@tfs.com>, robb@tfs.com (Not a tty) writes:

> Perhaps you haven't noticed, but your FRIENDLY COAST GUARD can board your
> boat for any reason they choose, search your boat for any reason they choose,
> and do not require even the slightest provocation or suspicsion.  Why is this
> different from allowing police officers to search your home, car or person
> without probable cause?
> -- 

  I agree with those who feel that "zero tolerance" policies, with destruction
  and seizure of private property with almost no recourse available to innocent
  people, constitute a disenfranchisement of U.S. citizens.

  On the other hand, I don't understand why one would try to equate the func-
  tions of the Coast Guard to those of local police.  It seems to me that 
  their policing role comes much closer to that of a border guard/patrol and
  agencies in the latter category very much DO have the right to search your
  car and person without any stated "probable cause" that I am aware of.


  greg (living along the border with Canada) pavlov
  pavlov@fstrf.org
Xref: sparky rec.boats:8857 sci.physics:22049
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: rec.boats,sci.physics
Subject: Re: inverter electric lesson
Date: 3 Jan 1993 11:46 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan3.164428.10291@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson) writes...
> 
>>>	2) It is totally meaningless to say something takes "60A per hour".
> 
>	Not really.  The usual unit is the AmpHour (1 amp for one hour, 2 amps
>	for 30 minutes, .5A for 2 hours, etc....).  It is a useful, simplified
>	approximation for the energy in a battery, ASSUMING the terminal voltage
>	is constant.  (it isn't, but for a first approximation, its useful.)

Not really. :=)  Amp-hours are a measure of integrated current, or charge.
Amps per hour is a measure of the time rate of change of current.  In
the sense intended by the original poster, Amps/hour was indeed an
incorrect usage.  You are correct about the usage of Amp-hours, but they are
not Amps/hour.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Coast Guard user fee repealed!
Reply-To: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com
Organization: TI/DSEG VAX Support
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:55:15 GMT


In article <1h5esvINNe1j@leela.CS.ORST.EDU>, youngqd@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Dean Youngquist) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.152241.19709@mksol.dseg.ti.com> pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com writes:
>text deleted
>>
>>You missed a very important point.  The USCG operates for "the greater good" of
>>the United States and its citizens.  Only a portion of the CG budget is
>>dedicated to "boating services".  They also license, inspect, enforce (ie.
>>potty patrol), interdict (ie. the boarding thing), provide navigation aides and
>>chase submarines (no smileies).
>Its precisely this portion (the boating services portion) of the CG budget
>that should be paid by boaters.  Guarding the coast, chasing submarines and
>drug boats, that burden should be paid by the whole US population.  For
>decades the CG gave out free boating services, with only a few million boaters,
>why should the whole US population pay for the boating services portion of
>the CG budget ?  This $ ammount must be quite a lot in densely boated areas.

But the "user fee" was nothing more than a general revenue tax!  I have no
objection to paying a user fee which supports direct general boating services,
some portion of nav aids and some portion of general support of the USCG. 
Hell, I'll even finance the ettiquite classes for boarding parties.  Just don't
call a tax a user fee.

>>
>>I would be willing to pay a fee which directly supported the USCG (even if I
>>don't always), but to fatten up the budget so that more can be over spent is
>>beyond my will ...
>
>Since the US has a large national debt, paying money into the general fund
>won't fatten anything, just reduce the debt slightly.
>For years the whole taxpayer base paid for the boating services portion of
>the CG budget.  Many of us boater and our parents got free tows, rescues etc.
>Why not pay back the taxpayers ?

A) I agree, we should pay for what we get, I'm a Libertarian.
B) Having done this once, I know this is a curse: May you one day testify in a
budget hearing.

The attitude of Congress is to spend x% over the income, regardless of that
amount.  You didn't see the deficet go down any while the tax was in place
because the money was just spent.

BTW. It was a major weapons system that died a quite death a few years later.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |"Pacts with the devil are not legally
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |binding!"
PADI DM-54909                     |-Friar Tuck   _Robin Hood:The Hooded Man_

Newsgroups: rec.boats
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Coast Guard Boating Tax,
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 01:08:00 -0800

 On 12-18-92 DAVID COGEN wrote to ALL...

(Writing about things the Coast Guard doesn't do)

DC> 2) Ignore requests for radio checks.

I just noticed in Chapman's Manual in the section about VHF Radio use that it
is ILLEGAL to call for a radio check on channel 16.  You can use any other
channel for a radio check.  This is FCC regulation.  I wouldn't have known
this
if I hadn't read it in the book.

It is also illegal to make a VHF call to "any boat in the vicinity" or like
phrases.  When you call, you must call a specific boat.  So, how do you get a
radio check?  They suggest you listen in to a conversation on a channel other
than 16, catch the name and call letters of a boat, wait until the
conversation
is over, and then ask that specific boat for a radio check.  Seems
cumbersome,
but remember, we're dealing with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT here!  They don't
like
to keep anything simple.  But I do agree that channel 16, anhd the Coast
Guard
folks are probably innappropriate for radio checks.

Dan


... OFFLINE 1.42 * Pardon my driving; I'm trying to reload.
..........................................................


Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: mgsail@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (goldstein,marvin)
Subject: Re: Radio Checks, was Coast Guard Boating
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 15:05:04 GMT

In article <1gu1psINN7ht@male.EBay.Sun.COM> jeffh@nonsuch.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
>In article 20661@porthos.cc.bellcore.com, mgsail@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (goldstein,marvin) writes:
>> 
>> Since 9 is now a hailing channel in most (all?) of the country, doing anything
>> more than asking the VOICE to pick/switch to another channel is illegal.  Why
>> people don't ask for checks on working channels is beyond me.  
>> 
>
>
>My thought is, saying "loud and clear at (location)" is just as quick, and used 
>a whole lot less overall radio time than "pick a channel" or "go to channel xx"
>and reestablishing contact on that channel.  For practical purposes, once someone
>answers your call for a radio check, 99% of the reason for the check is completed -
>you know your transmitter is working.
>
>Jeff Huntington
>
>

The fact is that using the hailing channels for a radio is illegal no matter 
how short the call is.  Further, the checks I hear don't usually end with
"loud and clear at ----."  Isn't this just one more instance of people 
picking and choosing what rules and laws they will obey?

Marv Goldstein
From: mroberts@ptdcs2.intel.com (Mark Roberts ~)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Traffic Lights, was Radio Checks, Coas
Date: 24 Dec 92 20:50:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: ptdcs2.1992Dec24.205048.22680
Organization: Intel Corporation -- Aloha, Oregon

In article <MARC.92Dec23140259@marc.watson.ibm.com> marc@watson.ibm.com (Marc Auslander) writes:
>Gee - I guess I didn't understand the procedure.  I though the way to
>get a radio check was:
>

O.K., I've been following this thread for quite a few days now and I've
got a question for everybody (any body?} outside of Oregon ... Do ports
in any other areas have a "port channel"??  Along the Oregon coast the
fishermen use both C.B. and V.H.F. and each port uses its' "own" channel.
At Pacific City we use CB channel 5, in Tillamook they use another and
so on.  If you want fishing info or just want to test your equiptment
you use that channel.  Thanks  ...

					Fish to Live, Live to Fish
					   'Fish Assassin' Mark
					     Pacific City, OR
From: nguyen@hss3.smcm.edu (Ho Nguyen)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Beneteau First Class 8 (26 footer)
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:25:28 GMT
Reply-To: nguyen@oyster.smcm.edu
Distribution: usa

I am considering the purchase of a 1986 Beneteau First Class 8.  Any info  
re price, sail performance, good & bad points, PHRF & MORC ratings etc.  
would be appreciated.  E-mail asap.  Thanks
From: whoward@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu (Will Howard)
Subject: Re: Coast Guard user fee repealed!
Organization: Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:59:40 GMT

In article <petere-211292125808@129.83.90.13> petere@tesla.mitre.org (Peter D.
Engels) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.141656.1172@panix.com>, spencer@panix.com (David
>Spencer) wrote:
>> 
>> gbanks@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov (Gregory Banks) writes:
>> 
>> >Good news! The ripp-off fee that the government imposed on boaters
>> >that used water accessed by the coast guard is no more as of 1993!
>> 
>> I'm probably the only person who's going to disagree with you here.
>> The user fee is a terrific idea. My momma taught me to pay for what I
>> use, and not to slop at the government trough.
>> 
>> Why tax the poor to provide a service to the rich? As for commercial
>> fisherman, it's a cost of doing business. Only now it's going to be
>> paid by someone else.
>> 
>> Grow up and shoulder your responsibilities.
>
>The reason that there have been so many complaints about this tax is
>because the money did not go to the Coast Guard, who provide the service,
>but into the general funds.  So the general tax-paying public Porr AND
>rich) still have to pay for the service.
>

It's a matter of calling a general tax a tax, and a user fee a user fee, and
not put users fees into the general govt funds, or use tax money to pay for
things that should be paid for by the interested users "as they go." Sounds
good, but...  The catch is it's not so easy to draw a clear line between
services that benefit the general public, and thus should be paid for by taxes
(in principle), and services that benefit a smaller set of "users" like
recreational boaters. If the Coast Guard were able to estimate that it spends a
certain amount of effort, worth X million dollars, on services that directly
relate to recreational boating, then it would be reasonable, I think, to divide
that up in some equitable way among all recreational boaters and impose users
fee (for example the  per-foot charge as one admittedly imperfect scheme) that
then go directly to the CG. But that's not so simple - services like
navigational aids (buoys, LORAN, lighthouses, Notice to Mariners, etc.) and
search&rescue,  benefit rec. and commercial interests. Pollution enforcement
benefits many interests as well: commercial fishermen, beach-goers,
water-skiers, etc. But it's worth considering that every you go boating you ARE
using  government services - the CG is on call in case you get into mortal
danger, they're maintaining nav. aids, etc.

Will "But hey, what do I know?" Howard
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: petere@tesla.mitre.org (Peter D. Engels)
Subject: Re: Coast Guard user fee repealed!
Followup-To: rec.boats
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:00:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.141656.1172@panix.com>, spencer@panix.com (David
Spencer) wrote:
> 
> gbanks@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov (Gregory Banks) writes:
> 
> >Good news! The ripp-off fee that the government imposed on boaters
> >that used water accessed by the coast guard is no more as of 1993!
> 
> I'm probably the only person who's going to disagree with you here.
> The user fee is a terrific idea. My momma taught me to pay for what I
> use, and not to slop at the government trough.
> 
> Why tax the poor to provide a service to the rich? As for commercial
> fisherman, it's a cost of doing business. Only now it's going to be
> paid by someone else.
> 
> Grow up and shoulder your responsibilities.

The reason that there have been so many complaints about this tax is
because the money did not go to the Coast Guard, who provide the service,
but into the general funds.  So the general tax-paying public Porr AND
rich) still have to pay for the service.

Its always wise to check your facts, before attempting a lecture.

-Pete
Newsgroups: rec.boats