HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gerard@progress.COM (Gerard Bras)
Subject: Re: Coast Guard Boating Tax, NOT!
Organization: Progress Software Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:06:03 GMT

carl@Cayman.COM (Carl Heinzl) writes:

>Except that the border patrol can only check you out when you're
>crossing the border not when you're just approaching it.  

>So, unless you leave US Coastal Waters, they (the Coast Guard) should
>not be able to board you unless they have reasonable probable cause
>(e.g. they see you picking up packages that have been dropped from an
>airplance) that you have drugs/whatever aboard.

This line of reasoning reminds of the people who invent legal proofs that the 
income tax is uncostitutional thinking that this time the courts will see the
rightness of thier logic and overthrow the government.  Sorry folks, it won't
happen.  The courts have ruled over and over that the Coast Guard does *not*
need probable cause to stop, board, or search any vessel, any time.  This
could be changed, but only by action of Congress.  

cheers,
gerard
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: Gybing Centreboards
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:27:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.224526.3054@atlastele.com> briang@atlastele.com (Brian Godfrey) writes:

>In article <BOWERS.92Dec16131343@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:
>>Okay.  You have to think of a centerboard as a wing, like that on an
>>airplane.  in order for this wing to work as well to both sides (port
>>...
>>So ideally, a gybing board _should_ be more efficient.  But in actual
>>practice, it seldom is.  IMHO.

>I think the thing that most people leave out when they start thinking
>about using a pivoting keel to generate lift to counteract the pressure
>of wind against sail is this:  When a foil is generating lift, it is
>also generating drag.  This is an extremely well known phenomenon in
>airplanes.  In many planes, when you want to slow down one of the things
>you do is crank on flaps.  Flaps generate more lift, more lift causes
>more drag, and more drag slows you down.  Nothing is free.  So if you
>use angle of attack of the keel to pry the boat more upright, you will
>get increased propulsion (thrust) from your sails, and increased drag
>from the keel.  Which will have the larger effect?  I suppose that
>would depend on lots of things, but sometimes you probably gain, mostly
>you probably break even, sometimes you probably lose.

In this case, you always lose.  The centerboard is _very_ efficient at
generating lift, compared to the hull.  So ideally you want to
minimize the drag of the hull.  To do this you align the hull with the
flow (leeway equal zero).  The difference in the hull lift to no hull
lift on the leeway (angle of attack) angle is minimal (close enough to
zero to ignore, but it can be calculated with any Vortex Lattice
program).  But the difference in drag will be substantial.  The drag
due to lift from any lifting surface is called _induced_ drag.  The
other drag is profile and is pretty close to a fixed number and is
simply the skin friction plus the `form' drag.  There is also a
interference drag due to corners (like between the hull and the board)
but this is usually a given.  The other types of drag you need to be
concerned about are spray, cavitation and ventilation drag.

The killer with this arrangement is that a perfect seal between a
gybing board and the bottom of the hull (board case) is near
impossible to achieve.  This results in large amounts of water
sloshing around in the board case.  This is wasted energy.

You dinghy types can try a simple experiment.  Remove your board next
time on a downwind run in low to moderate winds.  As you remove the
board, look down into the case.  Lots of water sloshing about.  Bad.
Very bad.  :-)  That, my friends, is the definition of drag.

--
Al Bowers                       bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle, Lead Aero
NASA, Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, California
From: gerard@progress.COM (Gerard Bras)
Subject: Re: Ch 9-- VHF Rule Change
Organization: Progress Software Corp.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:31:14 GMT

hanners@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Robert Hanners) writes:

>There have been several questions here about the use of Channels 9 & 16,
>specifically regarding areas of country and exactly what is proper on
>each channel.  I just called the Coast Guard, Group Baltimore.  The
>young lady *very courteously* :-) offered to fax the following to me.

>	 Channel 9 approved as calling frequency for yachts
>	for yachts to help relieve congestion on channel 16!

>	The Federal Communications Commission recently amended
>     the Maritime Services Rules in PR Docket 91-167 (effective
>     June  7, 1992) to permit VHF marine radio channel 9 to be
>     used as a second calling channel by non-commercial vessels
>     and private coast stations.  The intent is to relieve
>     congestion on channel 16, the internationally designated
>     distress, safety, and calling frequency.

>	The new use of channel 9 is optional to all pleasure
>     boaters nationally.  As a result of this rule making, the
>     channel 16 monitoring requirement for non-commercial
>     vessels has been lifted when such vessels use channel 9
>     for calling purposes.  We wish to emphasize, however, that
>     channel 16 remains as the distress and safety frequency.

Maybe it's just me but somethings been bothering me about this split channel
usage.  Ordinarily, when I monitor, I keep it on 16 so I can catch safety and
distress broadcasts.  This seems like the prudent thing to do.  This means
that anyone calling me on 9 is SOL. 

I do not have a scanning radio, nor do I intend to buy one.  Yet it seems
that this is what the law wants me to do.  I agree that 16 is overused but 
I can't see giving up the safety and distress notices so I can hear 
non-commercial traffic.  In practice I use my VHF mostly for the weather
so it doesn't bother me that I'm going to miss all those radio check calls.
Still, I'd like this system to work.

For sore stations to monitor 9 makes sense.  For everything else it doesn't.
Can someone straighten me out please?

thanks,
gerard
From: dbk@phx.mcd.mot.com (Dave Kinzer)
Subject: Ohhh Nooo....More Zinc Questions
Summary:  Where are they on my engines?
Keywords: Zinc
Reply-To: teroach!dbk@phx.mcd.mot.com (Dave Kinzer)
Organization: Motorola Analog Integrated Circuits Division
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:17:59 GMT

   I have freshwater cooled Mercruiser 7.4L Blue Water inboards in my
boat, and I have been unable to find if and where they put the pencil
zincs for protection.  I would have expected them to be in the heat
exchanger, but looking at them (and the parts book), I was unable to
locate them.  The owner's manual makes no mention of them.  

   Does anybody have one (or more) of these engines and know where 
the zinc is?  It has occured to me (since I was last at the boat) that
they might be screwed into the seawater pump or the strainer.     


Ok, for you guys who are layed up for the winter, here is Dave's winter
project #127995:

   Freshwater flush system:

                         Tee Fitting
         __________________________________________________
        /  ________________   _______________     _________   To Engine
        | |                | |               |    |
        |X|  Seacock       |X| Ball Valve    |    |   Strainer
        | |                | |               ------
                           |\| Check Valve
                           | |
                           { } Female Hose Fitting

   The tee fitting allows unrestricted water flow to the engine, so it
should work as if the flush system were not even there.  The check valve
is there to prevent "accidents" from occuring (i.e. it is impossible to 
sink the boat by having the seacock and ball valve open).

   For my style of boating, which is going every three or so weeks for
a few days, this makes it really easy to get all the salt water out
of the system.  Just hook up a hose and open the ball valve.  After
a minute, close the seacock and let it run a few more minutes to flush
the equipment.  After I'm done, I poke a screwdriver into the check valve
to minimize the amount of water left standing in the system.

   The total cost for this is in the neighborhood of $50 per system
for the tee, valves & various pipe nipples in bronze (West Marine).  
I put these on my generator and A/C systems over the Christmas holiday, 
and will place them on the engines next time I'm there.  I screwed them 
directly into the strainer inlet so they became one with the bonding system.

   I thought about using something like a Prestone radiator flush kit,
but I wasn't as comfortable with it as I am with the bronze stuff.

Happy boating,
-Dave
From: youngqd@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Dean Youngquist)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: WANTED: Boat Auction on West Coast
Date: 3 Jan 93 23:53:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: leela.1i7u91INNiou
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: atlantis.cs.orst.edu

I would like to attend a boat auction somewhere on the west coast, may be
Southern California would be good.  I have heard of some auctions of 
repossessed boats but always after the auction has taken place.

If anyone knows of an auction please email me.  Thanks.

Dean Youngquist		youngqud@ucs.orst.edu
428 N.W. 9th Street	Corvallis, Oregon 97330
FAX (24hr) & Voice (not 24hr) shared 503 758-6230
From: bayes@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Scott Bayes)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:03:38 GMT
Subject: Re: British Steel results 17 DEC 92.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.boats

>     Southern Ocean at a little spot called 56 degrees north,
>     131 degrees west.
> 

Is this like Prof Peter Schickele's "University of Northern South
Dakota" (or was it "Southern North Dakota")?  I'd have thought a
location in the Southern Ocean would have a Southern Longitude.  This
seems to be somewhere near the Alaskan Panhandle.

:-)

ScottB
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: whoward@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu (Will Howard)
Subject: Re: Gybing Centreboards
Organization: Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:09:41 GMT

In article <BOWERS.92Dec22122726@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov>
bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:

>The killer with this arrangement is that a perfect seal between a
>gybing board and the bottom of the hull (board case) is near
>impossible to achieve.  This results in large amounts of water
>sloshing around in the board case.  This is wasted energy.
>
>You dinghy types can try a simple experiment.  Remove your board next
>time on a downwind run in low to moderate winds.  As you remove the
>board, look down into the case.  Lots of water sloshing about.  Bad.
>Very bad.  :-)  That, my friends, is the definition of drag.

That's why in a boat like a Laser in which you can remove the daggerboard
completely, you really want to leave it in the slot, raised. Unless you've have
some sort of gaskets that close over the slot.
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: dbk@phx.mcd.mot.com (Dave Kinzer)
Subject: Re: Coast Guard user fee repealed!
Reply-To: teroach!dbk@phx.mcd.mot.com (Dave Kinzer)
Organization: Motorola Analog Integrated Circuits Division
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:54:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.150046.14779@progress.com> gerard@progress.COM (Gerard Bras) writes:
>...regarding who pays for SAR

>                                              The analogy to funding of the
>ski patrol is right on the money.  

I disagree.  The proper analogy to public ski-patrol funding would be asking
the Coast Guard to patrol your privately owned lake (or publicly owned but
exclusively leased to you lake for which you charged others admission.)
That clearly is not the case we are talking about here.

  A more correct analogy for Coast Guard funding would be who should pay
for Highway Patrol funding.  Yes, you argue that people use the highway
for trucking.  So are the seas.  Yes, you argue that the highways are
used for commuting.  So are the seas.  Yes, you argue the seas are used
for recreational use.  So are the highways (as I do when driving to the
ski areas.)

   Would you now ask individuals to pay for rescue operations when they
are stuck in a blizzard.  Drove off a cliff?  Where would you draw the 
line?

   In So. Cal, the CG doesn't go out for gas or mechanical breakdowns,
they call in the local towing company to go get you (and whom you have
to pay.)  This is pretty analogous to what the Highway Patrol does.

   If I have to pay for the CG services, I'll do it.  I just felt the need
to point out the fallacy of the ski patrol analogy.  For simple breakdowns,
I'd call the local tow company directly, (but I'd probably give my position
to the CG just in case.)

-Dave

Newsgroups: rec.boats,sci.physics
From: matt@severian.chi.il.us (Matt Crawford)
Subject: Re: inverter electric lesson
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 02:22:41 GMT

> >	2) It is totally meaningless to say something takes "60A per hour".
> 
> Well, perhaps not *totally* meaningless, albeit more or less useless:
> I would look at "Amps/Hour" dimensionally as a rate of change of current.
> As I said, not particularly useful, 

Unless you're ramping up your superconducting dipole magnets to keep
your very expensive antiprotons moving in a circle of constant radius
as they gain energy at a known rate ...
_________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford       crawdad@fncent.fnal.gov      Fermilab
From: wex@castle.ed.ac.uk (John Wexler)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Coast Guard user fee repealed!
Date: 23 Dec 92 10:45:48 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University Computing Service

In article <29825@castle.ed.ac.uk>, ercn72@festival.ed.ac.uk (R.J.Hare) writes:
|> 1) The Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) is a body composed of
|>    volunteers (they may employ fulltime administrators at their HQ, but I
|>    believe *all* crew are volunteers).
The RNLI has been a wholly independent organisation with all-volunteer
crews since its foundation, except for a brief period in the 19th century
when it received Government funding.  It then decided to refuse
Government aid, for three major reasons:
  the likelihood of political interference
  the expectation that the Treasury would end up restricting, rather
    than augmenting, the Institution's funding
  the fear of legal control and liability

Crews are not employees, and they are never under external orders - the
coxswain is absolute master of a boat.  Hence they can and do exercise
their own judgment (and their extreme skill) in very hazardous
situations without worrying about regulations, risk-avoidance and legal
repercussions in case something goes wrong.  They have always felt that
freedom to be essential if they are to rescue people from desperate
situations in extreme conditions when a legally responsible controller
would have to say "abandon the operation". 

Whole lifeboat crews are sometimes lost, and the RNLI is not regarded as
responsible, so it doesn't have to pay compensation to the families. 
(It does in fact pay something, but the crews accept as part of the task
that the Institution's funds should be spent on life-saving rather than
on compensation for lives lost.  Public subscriptions after each
disaster generally raise plenty of money for the families.)

|> 2) HM Coastguard is a statutory body. They also provide rescue services,
|>    sometimes co-ordinating rescues.
I don't think they normally carry out rescues.  That's to say that they
don't generally put to sea in their own craft for rescue purposes. 
Their main function is to keep watch on coastal waters (nowadays,
primarily a radio watch) for all sorts of purposes - traffic control,
rescue coordination, detection of smuggling, and so on.

|> 3) HM Customs and Excise is a statutory body. These are the folks who track
|>    down the smugglers. They operate at airports and ports of course, but they
|>    also have fast patrol boats, blac k rubber dinghies and can and do stop
|>    boats and 'rummage' them.

There are also fishery protection vessels - I don't know whether the US
coastguard does any of that sort of thing.  Actually, I don't know who
operates ours.  Some of them are certainly part of the Royal Navy, but
I'm not sure that they all are.

Then, from some of the things that have been posted about the US
coastguard, I deduce that they have some tasks which would be taken by
the Royal Navy in British waters.

Finally, there's the question of marine rescue by helicopter.  This is
normally done by the RAF, which has specialist squadrons for that sort
of work.

    John Wexler
    Edinburgh
From: hanners@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Robert Hanners)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Ch 9-- VHF Rule Change
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:24:51 GMT
Reply-To: hanners@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Robert Hanners)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Annapolis, MD

There have been several questions here about the use of Channels 9 & 16,
specifically regarding areas of country and exactly what is proper on
each channel.  I just called the Coast Guard, Group Baltimore.  The
young lady *very courteously* :-) offered to fax the following to me.

From "The Whisker Pole", October 1992, page 4 (w/ CG approval):

	* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
			 VHF RULE CHANGE

	     submitted by Jack O'Brien, Chair, Safety

	 Channel 9 approved as calling frequency for yachts
	for yachts to help relieve congestion on channel 16!

	The Federal Communications Commission recently amended
     the Maritime Services Rules in PR Docket 91-167 (effective
     June  7, 1992) to permit VHF marine radio channel 9 to be
     used as a second calling channel by non-commercial vessels
     and private coast stations.  The intent is to relieve
     congestion on channel 16, the internationally designated
     distress, safety, and calling frequency.

	The new use of channel 9 is optional to all pleasure
     boaters nationally.  As a result of this rule making, the
     channel 16 monitoring requirement for non-commercial
     vessels has been lifted when such vessels use channel 9
     for calling purposes.  We wish to emphasize, however, that
     channel 16 remains as the distress and safety frequency.

				       - Susan Jones, Attorney
					 FCC, Washington, D.C.
	* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Note that channel 9 is "optional", not "mandatory".  Hard to believe
that the FCC or the USCG can make it mandatory in the northeast only,
as I thought I saw posted here.

-- Bob

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Hanners         "My comments; only mine."          *DIASTOLE* 676673
CD, NSWC, Annapolis, MD                              hanners@oasys.dt.navy.mil
From: jeffh@nonsuch.EBay.Sun.COM (Jeff Huntington)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Traffic Lights, was Radio Checks, Coas
Date: 24 Dec 1992 01:25:31 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jeffh@nonsuch.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: nonsuch.ebay.sun.com

In article 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:
> 
> 1.  Get on 16, on high power of course, and say "breaker 16, anyone out
> there for a radio check."
> 
> 2.  One of three things happens -
> 
>         A.  Someone yells "radio check load and clear".
> 
>         B.  The CG says "16 is a distress and hailing channel ..."
> 
>         C.  None of the above.
> 
> A or B means the radio is working.  I always thought this was one of
> the best CG services available.
> --


You got it about right, except the proper response is "I read you five by - Over
and out" :-)  :-) ;-)

Jeff Huntington
From: Dan.Hannah@f764.n153.z1.ship.wimsey.bc.ca (Dan Hannah)
Sender: UUCP@ship.wimsey.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Mercruiser questions
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 01:15:00 -0800

On 12-18-92 GREG PAVLOV wrote to ALL...

 GP> My boat has a strange tendency to "fishtail" while bumbling
 GP> along at
 GP> 1200 RPM.  It runs straight as an arrow at speed.

My 25 foot bayliner IO does the same thing, a little less now with the
Duoprop
conversion. (Best money I ever spent, BTW!)

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?

Dan


... OFFLINE 1.42 * To any objective person it'd be obvious that I'm right.
...............................................................................
From: hanners@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Robert Hanners)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Celestial vs. GPS (was Re: Bermuda Trip - 7/'93)
Date: 30 Dec 92 11:56:16 GMT
Reply-To: hanners@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Robert Hanners)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Annapolis, MD

In rec.boats, roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes:
>bartley@spss.com (Dennis Bartley) writes:
>> You really don't have to be a rocket scientist to use Loran or GPS,
>> and with just a little thought you can tell the position it's giving
>> is in error.
>
>        I think part of the problem is that most people don't understand the
>difference between precision and accuracy, and assume that just because a
>Loran shows you your position to 1/10th (or even 1/100th) of a minute it
>must be correct.

I'm not too familiar with the features on Loran and GPS but I do have
an appreciation of the potential error propagation that these devices,
especially the former, possess.  Intrinsic to the position calculation
algoritm of the unit is the ability for the unit to calculate range from
the transmitters and, depending on the memory/cost, some degree of the
propagation perturbation potential (percent range over land, for example).
Also there's the direct ability to calculate potential error due to
nearly parallel intercepts and of course the unit can get a direct read
on signal strength.

My question is this: Why isn't it reasonable for the unit to calculate and
display a measure of this potential error, as individual values (for
the discerning user :-) ) or as a total?  Or is this in fact a feature
of some makes?  The error itself could be a statistical measure such
as 50%, standard deviation, 2 x sd, or whatever.  Preferrably such
weighting would be user selectable.

Now I do appreciate some of the difficulties in affixing real values to
some types of error and that some kinds of error cannot be reasonably
quantifiable at all.  (This would be an advantage of displaying individual
errors rather than simply the total.)  But it seems that manufacturers
might see that the advantage of such analyses for the knowledgable sailor
would outweigh the perception to the less knowledgable user that their
instrument is "error prone".

What do you think?

-- Bob

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Hanners         "My comments; only mine."          *DIASTOLE* 676673
CD, NSWC, Annapolis, MD                              hanners@oasys.dt.navy.mil
From: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Coast Guard user fee repealed!
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:53:01 GMT
Reply-To: tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In rec.boats, briang@atlastele.com (Brian Godfrey) writes:

>   The Coast Guard originated as operators of rescue boats.  

    The Coast Guard originated before the Navy was formed as operators
of "Revenue Cutters," fast cutters to chase down rum smugglers from
the Caribbean trying to evade the import tax.  They took on search and
rescue, aids to navigation, etc. as natural extensions to their role
in "Guarding our Coastline."
    Every time I have heard a senior coast guard official speak at a
mostly Navy function he/she has started by pointing out that the Coast
Guard is the oldest armed service in the country.  It always gets a 
good laugh from the Navy people.

Tim Smith