HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jeffh@nonsuch.EBay.Sun.COM (Jeff Huntington)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Radio Checks, was Coast Guard Boating
Date: 21 Dec 1992 18:05:42 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jeffh@nonsuch.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: nonsuch.ebay.sun.com

In article 1403@porthos.cc.bellcore.com, mgsail@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (goldstein,marvin) writes:
> 
> 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?
> 



Boy, this is a good way to start off a lively thread on whether people should 
just blindly follow rules, or if they think of the reason and intent of the 
rule and let that influence their actions. :-)


I surely can't say what is "right", but I know that I am in the latter camp.  
My wife and I have debated this issue endlessly, usually as a result of my 
doing something like stopping at a red light late a night (when there is no 
traffic on the road at all), and then driving through the red light rather 
than sitting there waiting for it to change.

I think it is a mark of an unthinking, follow like sheep, mindset to sit at a 
traffic light with no one around waiting for it to turn green.  My wife does
not agree.  :-)  She believes rules are rules, and should always be followed.
I beleive it is impossible to write a rule that can tell you what is the best 
thing to do in every situation, and so we have the option of thinking and
deciding when the rule applies and when it doesn't.  And, the discussion goes
on and on.  ;-)

I think we have stumbled on to the same kind of thing with radio checks.

Jeff Huntington


Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: jadams@vixen.cc.bellcore.com (adams,john)
Subject: Re: Coast Guard Boating Tax, NOT!
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 19:31:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.004155.21747@u.washington.edu> kaygee@hardy.u.washington.edu (Kevin Giansante) writes:
>carl@Cayman.COM (Carl Heinzl),In-reply-to: pavlov@niktow.canisius.edu's
>message of 21 Dec 92 09:24:17 GMT, says:
>
>
>>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.
>
>>-Carl-
>
>and I say:
>
>Not true, Carl.  The Border Patrol can go just about anywhere they wish
>at any time, and they can even operate outside of the normal legal
>constraints that we expect from our police agencies.  They have more
>enforcement power than any other agency, except maybe the Secret
>Service.
>
>I agree that "probable cause" should be used as a guideline, but 
>probable cause is not restricted to seeing people picking up
>packages out of the water.  Sometimes just being seen somewhere
>SEEMS to constitute probable cause.  It's a judgment call.

My friends who live outside of El Paso, TX support Kevin's assertion.  They,
A career Army officer and his wife, have been stopped several times over the years
without probable cause by Border Patrols.  It seems to be a way of life there!

-- 
Jack (John) Adams			| Bellcore NVC 2Z-220
(908) 758-5372 {Voice}			| (908) 758-4389 {Facsimile}
jadams@vixen.bellcore.com		| kahuna@attmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: becker@super.org (Donald J. Becker)
Subject: Re: Price for 1986 J-24
Organization: IDA Supercomputing Research Center
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:19:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.205247.19275@leland.Stanford.EDU> stefan@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stefan Michalowski) writes:
>Fritz Zaucker writes:
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>is 15k a reasonable price for a 1986 J-24, supposedly in good shape,
>>but with worn out sails (including trailer)?
>>
>
>I would say that the price is much too high, almost by a factor of 2.
>
>Stefan

You can get an older J/24 for under $7500, but I would have guess that
$15K is only 50% too high for a 1986 boat with trailer.

Keep in mind that you'll be paying about $1K ea. for a main, 150 and chute.

Be sure to ask someone with J/24 experience to look over the boat,
especially for water damage under the deck fittings near the mast and around
where the chainplates bolt to the bulkhead.

				Don Becker (1980 J/24 #2284, _Compromise_)
-- 
Donald Becker				       becker@super.org
Supercomputing Research Center
17100 Science Drive, Bowie MD 21114		   301-805-7482
Date: Friday, 25 Dec 1992 16:31:35 EST
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Coast Guard Boardings and TQM

In article <8017@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, alany@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Alan Yelvington)
says:
>
>I have been saving all of the postings concerning the
>Coast Guard and its policies.  I plan to remove the
>sigs from them and forward them to the Coast Guard
>Commandant.
>
>[...]
>If you have CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions, please post them as a
>RE: to this posting.
>
>Alan Yelvington

I would suggest that you forward copies of your "Problem Log"
of USCG abuses to a) the appropriate legislators, b) various
news media such as The Pittsburgh Press, which has done an
admirable job of roasting the DEA for similar abuses.

I would also suggest that you tell each party where else you are
forwarding the information.

W. K. Gorman
Xref: sparky rec.boats:8849 sci.physics:22005
Newsgroups: rec.boats,sci.physics
Subject: Re: inverter electric lesson
From: frank@evax2.engr.arizona.edu (Frank Manning)
Date: 1 Jan 93 15:23:55 MST
Reply-To: frank@evax2.engr.arizona.edu
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona, College of Engineering and Mines, Tucson

>...inductance is -L*di/dt...

Oops. I mean the induced voltage is -L*di/dt, not inductance.

-- Frank Manning
From: jeffh@nonsuch.EBay.Sun.COM (Jeff Huntington)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Traffic Lights, was Radio Checks, Coas
Date: 23 Dec 1992 17:08:04 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jeffh@nonsuch.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: nonsuch.ebay.sun.com

In article 13597@dbsun.uucp, meyer@dbsun.uucp (Don Meyer) writes:
> In article <moseley.139.725047045@u.washington.edu> moseley@u.washington.edu (Steve L. Moseley) writes:
> >Well, I hope I,m not the pedestrian you didn't see crossing in front of your 
> >car when you decide to blow the next red light.
> 
> I was assuming that the original poster (who said he doesn't see any
> point in sitting at a red light late at night with no traffic) meant
> that he treated it as a "stop sign".  I.E., come to a complete halt,
> look both (all) ways, and then proceed through the red.
> This would encompass pedestrian traffic.


Thank you Don.

As you correctly perceived, I am not advocating a reckless disregard for rules 
or laws.  What I was talking about is engaging ones brain and thinking if
what you are doing makes sense; if it is complying with the purpose or intent
of the rule or law.  This stemmed from a discussion of radio checks on
channel 16.  I understand the rules for using channel 16 as a calling and
emergency channel are intended to reduce the traffic on channel 16 to a 
minimum.  Therefore, if you can give someone a radio check on channel 16 and
use an equal or less amount of time as you would use in going to another 
channel, it is a reasonable thing to do.  Why use the same amount of time
on channel 16, and then go to another channel and tie it up as well?  I
find in my area that it is relatively easy to get access to channel 16 to
call someone.  It is finding another channel that is free that is frequently
difficult.

Jeff Huntington
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: swist@doodly.mcc.dec.com (Jim Swist)
Subject: Re: Ch 9-- VHF Rule Change
Reply-To: swist@took.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:38:37 GMT


I believe the theory is that you are supposed to monitor CH9
and not CH16 in these areas.  The CG claims that it will broadcast
all safety-related transmissions (including weather alerts) on both 9 and 16.  True, you will not hear distress calls, but the CG (who hears them on CH16) is supposed to send out any requests for assistance ("any vessel in the vicinity of xxx") on both CH9 and CH16. So in theory you will hear the pertinent ones.

It is true that if you want to hear all CG traffic plus any calls
to you that you need either a scanning function, or, and this
seems better, the "dual watch" capability some radios have.

I boat in the Northeast where this channel 9 stuff has been in
effect since before last Summer and have had no problem monitoring
CH9, but this is up in Maine where there is much less radio
traffic or distress calls than in, for example, the Boston area.
So I can't comment on how monitoring only 9 works there...
Xref: sparky rec.boats:8847 sci.physics:21988
From: dbell@cup.portal.com (David J Bell)
Newsgroups: rec.boats,sci.physics
Subject: Re: inverter electric lesson
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 23:14:39 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na
  <1i06daINNjvq@calvin.NYU.EDU>

Roy Smith <roy@nyu.edu> wrote:

>mshulman@genghis.borland.com (Michael Shulman) writes:
.
.
.
>>
>>So, the 600W microwave takes about 60A per hour of operation at 12V, 
>>depending on the efficiency of the inverter.

>	Sigh.  I guess I went a bit overboard with my "doctor dissertation
>in electrical engineering", but obviously it didn't sink in.  I'll try and
>be more succinct this time.

>	2) It is totally meaningless to say something takes "60A per hour".
>Amps is a unit of current.  I havn't the foggiest idea what "amps per hour"
>is a unit of.  I am reasonably certain, but not absolutely sure, that what
>you meant to say is "the 600W microwave draws about 60A at 12V, which means
>it eats up 60AH of charge per hour of operaton".  It's more than just a
>matter of semantics (or even pedantics).

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, and almost certainly not what was
meant in the original posting!

Dave
dbell@cup.portal.com
From: pavlov@niktow.canisius.edu (Greg Pavlov)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Mercruiser questions
Date: 21 Dec 92 10:28:43 GMT
Organization: Canisius College, Buffalo NY. 14208

In article <1992Dec18.171017.27559@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>, dsmith@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (David R. Smith) writes:
> In article <1896@niktow.canisius.edu> pavlov@niktow.canisius.edu (Greg Pavlov) writes:
> >> 
> > This results from a combination of the thrust forces of a single propeller
> > (thrust sideways as well as backward) and a hull that is designed to plane.
> > Though not all boats that fit this category will exhibit this behavior.  
> 
> I don't believe it. ...
> 
  I picked this up a while ago in a question-answer column in one of the 
  boating magazines.  I might have misunderstood/misread the answer.  Or maybe
  I understood it but the answer was wrong....  



  greg pavlov
  pavlov@fstrf.org
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: burati@apollo.hp.com (Michael Burati)
Subject: Re: Ch 9-- VHF Rule Change
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:24:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: fcc radio 16
Followup-To: burati@apollo.hp.com

In article <28886@oasys.dt.navy.mil> hanners@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Robert Hanners) writes:
>	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.
>
>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.

You did see it posted here, and I've seen it in LNM, and heard it from USCGAux
a year ago, and on ch16 group Boston all the time (for the last two summers).

Channel 9 is a calling channel.  The "OPTIONAL" above refers to the fact that
non-commercial vessels may now "optionally monitor" channel 9 instead of 16.
Note that the CG is now broadcasting Securite notices and requests for
assistance on both 9 and 16 (at least in the NE) to make monitoring channel 9
almost as safe as monitoring 16.   The FAX did say "Channel 16 remains as the
distress and safety frequency".  This implicitly (and unfortunately the way
they worded it above it's only implicit) means that Channel 16 is not to be
used for non Distress or non Safety messages.  Note, that CG group Boston has
had to continually (ie: several times/hour) remind people on 16 that they are
violating the use of that frequency and to please shift their traffic to
channel 9 or a working channel.  I've since moved my boat South of the Cape
(from Boston Harbor) and the traffic on 16 has gone down by many orders of
magnitude, and I hardly ever hear the CG (group Woods Hole) reminding people
to get off of 16.

..Mike
O'Day 272 "Moriah" WDYC
burati@apollo.hp.com

Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: tmb@idm.com (Thomas M Buccelli)
Subject: Re: Coast Guard user fee repealed!
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:37:18 GMT
Organization: Information Data Management

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.
: >
: >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 ?
: 
The US Taxpayers should pay for this the same way that the US taxpayers, or
taxpayers in general pay for things they will never use. I pay for taxes that
go towards public schools, transportation, etc that I will never use, but the
money goes there anyway. Same difference.

					Tom
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: ed.mccrudden@rose.com (ed mccrudden)
Subject: Mercruiser questions
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:38:12 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 01-01-93 17:34
Greetings, all, and Happy New Year!

Many thanks to all those who took the time to respond, via E-mail or by
posting here, to my "Mercruiser questions".

I wasn't surprised to find that all respondents were horrified at the
idea of not getting one of the engine drain cocks open.  Contemplating
a cracked engine block isn't fun.

In my particular case, I ended up pouring an antifreeze mixture through
the thermostat housing, but we did have a cold snap up here just prior
to that, and I was unable to get to the boat in time.

I do believe (or at least I *hope*) that the block was drained sufficiently
through the cock on the other side.  It stands to reason that any remaining
water would expand into available air space as it froze, as opposed to
breaking its container (the block).

The frost plug was intact when I checked.  I wonder if that was good news
or bad news?

Three years ago, a friend of mine neglected to open ANY of the drain cocks
on his 4.3LX before a sudden cold spell.  Both exhaust manifolds cracked,
and were replaced at considerable expense, but the engine block was unharmed.
The frost plug had popped, saving his motor.

Re the "fishtailing" at low speed, I was astounded by the number of people
who said, "My boat does this too, they all do it....."

None of my previous boats had this tendency, and I can honestly say that
I've never been on a boat that exhibited this behavior.

Either I've been very lucky, or I don't get out enough... <chuckle!>

Anyway, thanks again to all of you for making this a consistently interesting
newsgroup during '92.  I didn't write much, but I read plenty, and learned
a thing or two!

-Ed             <ed.mccrudden@rose.com>
---
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: donr@hpcvcdo.cv.hp.com (Don Reid)
Subject: Re: Radio Checks, was Coast Guard Boating
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:05:40 GMT

> The fact is that using the hailing channels for a radio <check> is illegal no
> matter how short the call is.  

Lighten up!

Can you do a radio check without hailing someone first?

Can you also agree that when answering a general hail for a radio check,
giving your location and approximate receiving conditions are an important
part of identifying yourself?

How about:

A) "This is AAAA at <location_A> calling anyone willing to do a radio check"

B) "This is BBBB at <location_B> receiving you clearly.  Do you wish to suggest
    a working channel?"

A) "Thank you, no.  AAAA out/standing by/etc.)"
Xref: sparky rec.boats:8848 sci.physics:22004
Newsgroups: rec.boats,sci.physics
Subject: Re: inverter electric lesson
From: frank@evax2.engr.arizona.edu (Frank Manning)
Date: 1 Jan 93 15:20:54 MST
Reply-To: frank@evax2.engr.arizona.edu
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona, College of Engineering and Mines, Tucson

>In article <1i06daINNjvq@calvin.NYU.EDU> roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith)
>writes:
>
>mshulman@genghis.borland.com (Michael Shulman) writes:
>
>>So, the 600W microwave takes about 60A per hour of operation at 12V, 
>>depending on the efficiency of the inverter.
>
>	2) It is totally meaningless to say something takes "60A per hour".
>Amps is a unit of current.  I havn't the foggiest idea what "amps per hour"
>is a unit of.

It depends on who's doing the talking. If the source was LBJ and if you were
the Air Force officer in charge of the new microwave system, and keeping in
mind the previous confusion over the SR-71, you would scramble and say to the
reporter:

"Yes, the President was referring to the inductance of the system during
startup. As you know, inductance is -L*di/dt. For no particular reason, units
of amps per hour happen to have been adopted for the current-change term."

If the statement had come from our esteemed Vice President, of course, it would
be plastered on the front page of the New York Times, along with unending
razzes from the pundits.

-- Frank Manning
From: thatchh@hplsla.hp.com (Thatch Harvey)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 01:21:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Outboard fuel Filters
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Newsgroups: rec.boats





             Mercury/Mercruiser sells a nice wall/bulkhead mount filter set
with a cast aluminum body and replaceable spin off water separating filters.
Sierra sells replacement filters and may sell the whole setup. I've seen
them in lots of catalogs and stores. They have two sets  of inlets and
outlets with plugs in one side in case you want to run twins. I had one
on my last boat with a 140 outboard, and I have one on this boat with twin
I/O's. I have never had any filter related fuel problems. Price around $40.
You should be able to find one of these at most outboard dealers or marine
supply stores. Change the filter once a season, and you're all set. Filter
price about $8.


                      Thatch



    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
    % Thatch Harvey                                                    %
    % uucp: (no longer valid)            domain: thatchh@hplsla.hp.com %
    % Hewlett-Packard              Lake Stevens Instrument Division    %
    % Lake Stevens, WA                                                 %
    % (206) 335-2083            31' Baunsgard   1972 twin engine       %
    %      flying bridge, lapstrake, wood cruiser "ENDLESS LIST"       %
    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%





From: clydej@hplsla.hp.com (Clyde Jenkins)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:54:53 GMT
Subject: Re: soap for salt water
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Newsgroups: rec.boats

I have used Sea Savon Soap.  I think it is made in Germany, but was/is 
available in the US from West Marine.  It is about 2 or 3 times more
expensive that the liquid detergents.  I like it because salt water seems
to cause the skin on my fingers crack.  Sea Savon has some emollient that
reduces the problem.  It comes in a squeeze bottle that is a better shape
and with a better cap than liquid detergent.  Environmentally safe?  I
don't know.

Clyde Jenkins
Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: briang@atlastele.com (Brian Godfrey)
Subject: Re: Coast Guard user fee repealed!
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:35:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.152241.19709@mksol.dseg.ti.com> pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com writes:
>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).

   The Coast Guard originated as operators of rescue boats.  I cannot
   imagine a greater good than saving lives.  They became paramilitary 
   during WWII (if I recall correctly.)  Unfortunately, they remain 
   paramilitary.  I, and it sounds like others as well, do not feel that
   this is for the greater good.  We've already got one Navy.  Why do we
   need two?  (Of course, I suppose it could be argued that the Coasties
   at their worst are probably better than the Navy at its best when it
   comes to vessel search and seizure. :-)

-- 
--Brian M. Godfrey
  atlastele.com
From: advax@reg.triumf.ca (A.Daviel)
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Traffic Lights, was Radio Checks, Coas
Date: 24 Dec 1992 14:55 PST
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: reg.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1hb3ibINNl9k@male.EBay.Sun.COM>, jeffh@nonsuch.EBay.Sun.COM writes...
>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."
>> 
> 
>You got it about right, except the proper response is "I read you five by - Over
>and out" :-)  :-) ;-)
> 

I thought "over and out" was only used by Hollywood. "Over" means you are 
expecting a resonse, "out" means you are not. So "over and out" must mean 
you're not sure!

I also thought that "breaker" was a CB expression, not for VHF/HF use. But 
then anyone who gives their boat name and callsign three times when they're 
misusing the channel is asking for trouble :)

--
 Andrew Daviel, Vancouver, Canada
From: bsmith@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Brian Smith)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:07:45 GMT
Subject: Re: Confused (was: Zincs on boats)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO