Just the FAQ's, ma'am...

Just the FAQ's, ma'am...

Post by Harry Kraus » Fri, 27 Nov 1998 04:00:00



containing a five part FAQ on boating. But after reading it, I believe
it is for another newsgroup, not this one. Most of the Q&A's pertain to
sailboating and none I saw pertained to NG manners. The last two parts
are a biblography on good boating books.

--

Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
The most affectionate creature is the wet dog.

 
 
 

Just the FAQ's, ma'am...

Post by Bill mcKe » Fri, 27 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Quote:


> containing a five part FAQ on boating. But after reading it, I believe
> it is for another newsgroup, not this one. Most of the Q&A's pertain to
> sailboating and none I saw pertained to NG manners. The last two parts
> are a biblography on good boating books.

> --

> Harry Krause
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> The most affectionate creature is the wet dog.

  Actually rec.boats need a very small FAQ.
1st question? Answer: money
2nd question? Answer: money
3rd question? Answer: money
4th question? Answer: money
5th question? Answer: money
6th question? Answer: money
....
....
....
nth-3 question? Answer Yes
nth-2 question? Answer  NO
nth-1 question? Answer Maybe
nth question? Answer More Money

Bill

 
 
 

Just the FAQ's, ma'am...

Post by Harry Kraus » Fri, 27 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Quote:



> > containing a five part FAQ on boating. But after reading it, I believe
> > it is for another newsgroup, not this one. Most of the Q&A's pertain to
> > sailboating and none I saw pertained to NG manners. The last two parts
> > are a biblography on good boating books.

> > --

> > Harry Krause
> > - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > The most affectionate creature is the wet dog.

>   Actually rec.boats need a very small FAQ.
> 1st question? Answer: money
> 2nd question? Answer: money
> 3rd question? Answer: money
> 4th question? Answer: money
> 5th question? Answer: money
> 6th question? Answer: money
> ....
> ....
> ....
> nth-3 question? Answer Yes
> nth-2 question? Answer  NO
> nth-1 question? Answer Maybe
> nth question? Answer More Money

> Bill

Your wisdom impresses me daily.

Harry Krause
------------------------
You don't count the dead when God's on your side.

--

Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Perhaps if I revert to human form it will calm them.

 
 
 

Just the FAQ's, ma'am...

Post by Bill mcKe » Fri, 27 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Quote:




> > > containing a five part FAQ on boating. But after reading it, I believe
> > > it is for another newsgroup, not this one. Most of the Q&A's pertain to
> > > sailboating and none I saw pertained to NG manners. The last two parts
> > > are a biblography on good boating books.

> > > --

> > > Harry Krause
> > > - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > > The most affectionate creature is the wet dog.

> >   Actually rec.boats need a very small FAQ.
> > 1st question? Answer: money
> > 2nd question? Answer: money
> > 3rd question? Answer: money
> > 4th question? Answer: money
> > 5th question? Answer: money
> > 6th question? Answer: money
> > ....
> > ....
> > ....
> > nth-3 question? Answer Yes
> > nth-2 question? Answer  NO
> > nth-1 question? Answer Maybe
> > nth question? Answer More Money

> > Bill

> Your wisdom impresses me daily.

> Harry Krause
> ------------------------
> You don't count the dead when God's on your side.

> --

> Harry Krause
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Perhaps if I revert to human form it will calm them.

  Remember golf got it's name because all the other 4 letter words were taken,
and boat stands for 'Break out another thousand'
Bill
 
 
 

Just the FAQ's, ma'am...

Post by K Smi » Sat, 28 Nov 1998 04:00:00

Harry,

        Wonder why you didn't get them, curious?

        A quick look shows it to be essentially a ***; are these people
"regulars" to your knowledge, I recognise a few like Paul Kamen but other
than that?

        Do you remember Jared's valiant attempt to make a rec.boats list
(that was until you bit him, you ***, *** boy) I can't recall any
of them on that list.

        My personal opinion goes something like this,

(i)     More likely NAQ, lots of very questionable answers, as Sam pointed
out a day or so ago, just one example from me is item 5.9 (52-53) from "mp"
Mat?;

QUOTE:

5.9   What's a formula for top speed?

The answer, verbatim from mp, is:

The formula yacht designers use is called Crouch's formula.
It takes into account the weight and horsepower at the
propeller, and assumes a 50"% to 60"% efficient prop.
Most props fall into this range.  Note that it doesn't take
into account the boat length, as that doesn't matter with
planing boats.

Crouch's Formula

    V = C/((DISP/HP)**.5)

Where V     = boat speed in knots  (1 knot=1.15 mph)
       C     = Constant (depends on boat type)
       DISP = Displacement (pounds)
                Note that boat manufacturers usually give
                innacurate numbers for displacement,
                typically on the low side
       HP    = Horsepower available at the propeller

For comparison sake, here are some average values of C:
     150        Typical lightweight, planing cruiser
     180        High Speed Runabout
     200-230    Race boats, hydroplanes etc.

                                 53

END QUOTE.

        It's possible the way Crouch's formula has been expressed is
ambiguous &/or I've misread it, if so I'm sorry & apologies, but:

 Crouch's formula really is;

                                        C
MPH =                              -----------
                [the square root of (DISP/HP)]

with "C" from 180 to 200 (not 150 to 230)

        In "Skene's Elements of Yacht Design" on pg.106  it gives a
notional example of boat weighing 24,000lbs with a total of 330 SHAFT HP.,
using a "C" of 180 which gives a potential top speed of about 21 MPH or 18
KTS. (this seems about right given it's shaft HP not eng. rated HP.)

        I've tried every which way to get "mp's" formula above to work on
the same boat & keep getting 4.95 kts.

(ii)    I say it's an ego trip for a bunch of "edu" addresses (poor souls
they can't/couldn't make a living doing it so......... they just can't
accept that real life has moved on without them),

(iii)   Lots & lots of unattributed, unsubstantiated "opinion" mostly
claiming to be the original work of "jfh" (really sad bs but I guess he at
least thinks he's published),

(iv)    the usual endless list of "book titles" (I sure you'll particularly
appreciate they're all devoted members of the "I'm gonna write a book"
brigade, usually reprinting other peoples original material with no
attribution), the point is posters to rec.boats need the info, not which
book or series of books they should "buy" or "take it to a dealer",

(v)     Club addresses, what a joke ! (they need the security of a herd,
their institution, the team or whatever just to visit the toilet & I'm not
talking about our habit of going in pairs),

(vi)    Lots of emphasis on "organised competive" boating, mostly sail, I'm
guessing the trailer sailer "squadron". (after all like all "organised
competive" sports types, they think if you can't do something totally
useless for mankind better than someone else, then you can't be a good
person & there's that safety in numbers thing again.)

(vii)   It's really just spam.

Karen Smith.



Quote:

>containing a five part FAQ on boating. But after reading it, I believe
>it is for another newsgroup, not this one. Most of the Q&A's pertain to
>sailboating and none I saw pertained to NG manners. The last two parts
>are a biblography on good boating books.

>--

>Harry Krause
>- - - - - - - - - - - -
>The most affectionate creature is the wet dog.

 
 
 

Just the FAQ's, ma'am...

Post by t.r.mcloughli » Tue, 01 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> (i)     More likely NAQ, lots of very questionable answers, as Sam pointed
> out a day or so ago, just one example from me is item 5.9 (52-53) from "mp"
> Mat?;

> QUOTE:

> 5.9   What's a formula for top speed?
> Crouch's Formula

>     V = C/((DISP/HP)**.5)

[snip]

Quote:
>  Crouch's formula really is;

>                                         C
> MPH =                              -----------
>                 [the square root of (DISP/HP)]

*blink* *blink*

The right-hand side of the equations are exactly the same.
(n**.5 is just another notation for square_root(n).) The difference,
though is the former claims knots as the dimension, the later, mph.

Curiouser.

trm

 
 
 

Just the FAQ's, ma'am...

Post by Marcus G Be » Wed, 02 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> > QUOTE: 5.9 What's a formula for top speed? Crouch's Formula V
> > = C/((DISP/HP)**.5) [ENDQUOTE]
> > Crouch's formula really is; C MPH = ----------- [the square
> > root of (DISP/HP)]

> *blink* *blink* The right-hand side of the equations are exactly
> the same. (n**.5 is just another notation for square_root(n).)

Right. Back when computer geeks were the most prominent force in
Usenet, most folks here knew FORTRAN. "A*B" is "A multiplied by B"
and "A**B" is "A raised to the power of B" in FORTRAN notation. We
have since gotten used to it being represented as "A^B" in less
arcane computer languages. Thus A**.5 = A^0.5 = square_root(A)


 
 
 

Just the FAQ's, ma'am...

Post by Harry Kraus » Wed, 02 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:


> > > QUOTE: 5.9 What's a formula for top speed? Crouch's Formula V
> > > = C/((DISP/HP)**.5) [ENDQUOTE]

> > > Crouch's formula really is; C MPH = ----------- [the square
> > > root of (DISP/HP)]


> > *blink* *blink* The right-hand side of the equations are exactly
> > the same. (n**.5 is just another notation for square_root(n).)

> Right. Back when computer geeks were the most prominent force in
> Usenet, most folks here knew FORTRAN. "A*B" is "A multiplied by B"
> and "A**B" is "A raised to the power of B" in FORTRAN notation. We
> have since gotten used to it being represented as "A^B" in less
> arcane computer languages. Thus A**.5 = A^0.5 = square_root(A)



It's more fun in APL.

--

Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I joined the Klingon Overhand Bowling Team.

 
 
 

Just the FAQ's, ma'am...

Post by Marcus G Be » Wed, 02 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:


> file containing a five part FAQ on boating. But after reading
> it, I believe it is for another newsgroup, not this one. Most of
> the Q&A's pertain to sailboating and none I saw pertained to NG
> manners. The last two parts are a biblography on good boating
> books.

You are partly correct.

It is indeed the FAQ from rec.boats prior to about 1995, before
DejaNews. For our intents and purposes, that WAS a different
group. Sailboaters were much more prominent in the group then, as
other groups rec.boats.racing, rec.boats.cruising, and
alt.sailing.asa did not yet exist. Once the new groups formed, the
sailors migrated and set up shop there.

Of the regular rec.boats contributors from back then, I can today
only recognize those remaining (besides myself) as: Rod McInnis,
Peter Meek, Tom McLoughlin, Paul Kamen. The others are gone to
their own greener pastures, or greener greenies as the case may
be, taking with them lots of good information and good
conversation. Others are filling their shoes, albeit somewhat
differently.

No entries needed to be made about newsgroup manners then, as they
weren't a problem. People either just didn't think to do the stuff
they do now, or they observed for a while to get an idea of what
"acceptible behavior" is. They also followed the general
guidelines that applied to ALL Usenet at the time, and as such
rec.boats was created without a charter. We simply didn't need
one.

Our group has evolved in many ways for the better. But not always
for the better.


 
 
 

Just the FAQ's, ma'am...

Post by Harry Kraus » Wed, 02 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Since I turned the filters back on, over Thanksgiving, much of the flotsam
> is gone, and more of the pearls of wisdom, are easily seen.  It's a much
> clearer stream now.   :-)

> --
> ?Ja'me
> -------

I do hope you invoked the "Jammies" filter, to help minimize the b.s. about
the supposed "superiority" of four stroke outboards.

--

Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
A man's life is dyed the color of his imagination.

 
 
 

Just the FAQ's, ma'am...

Post by Marcus G Be » Wed, 02 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> A quick look shows it to be essentially a ***; are these people
> "regulars" to your knowledge, I recognise a few like Paul Kamen
> but other than that?

See my response to Harry's post to get some history about the
5-part FAQ posted here, to which Harry refers.

I'll address some of Karen's points to add my insight. Not that
I'm doing this to dump on Karen, mind you, but her thoughts are
provocative and might be worth another look.

Quote:
> My personal opinion goes something like this,
> QUOTE: 5.9 What's a formula for top speed?

Already dealt with this elsewhere.

Quote:
> (ii)       I say it's an ego trip for a bunch of "edu" addresses (poor
> souls they can't/couldn't make a living doing it so.........
> they just can't accept that real life has moved on without
> them),

I say it's just old information from the group as it was several
years ago. It should surprise no one that a FAQ compiled several
years ago should reflect the makup and interests of the group *at
that time*, not as it is now.

One of Usenet's primary starting points was as a tool for
academicians to exchange information. As such, rec.boats used to
be primarily folks from ".edu" addresses, as was Usenet in
general, till it was expanded into the public at large. Therein
lies the most probable explanation for the pre*** of "edu"
in the FAQ, and further conclusions are likely off base.

The parenthetical notion of "those who can't do, teach" is a
pretty tired joke that did not bear mentioning here. Among other
things, "edu" guys were crucial in conceiving Usenet and the
digital computers upon which it runs, so it stands to reason that
they are in fact creating for others the real life, of which they
themselves are accused of being bereft. Moreover, alligning
character assessments to three letters after a dot in an email
address would be equivalent to heaping similar conclusions upon
someone who has misspelled "driftwood" in her email handle. So
probably best not to go there ;-)

Quote:
> (iii)      Lots & lots of unattributed, unsubstantiated "opinion"
> mostly claiming to be the original work of "jfh" (really sad bs
> but I guess he at least thinks he's published),

"jfh" is John F. Hughes. He was one of the more recognizable
contribitors to rec.boats in years past. I am not in a position to
judge his specific contributions to the FAQ, partly because it
would be too time consuming to read and verify the items therein,
but I do recall that he and his opinions were held in high esteem
by rec.boats in general during his tenure. I confess to archiving
a private email that John sent me many years ago, congratulating
me for one of my contributions... just as some people frame the
first dollar bill they earn. It was for me a sign that I had "made
it".

On to more ancient history. John maintained rec.boats' FAQ back
when he was around to do it. John doesn't contribute to rec.boats
anymore, that I can tell. I suspect he is doing less writing and
more sailing with his family, you know, real life stuff. He does
post the charter to rec.boats.cruising once a week as a service to
that group, by automatic post from a computer at Brown I believe.
I don't know if the rec.boats FAQ is meant to be posted
automatically as a service to us.

Quote:
> (iv)       the usual endless list of "book titles" (I sure you'll
> particularly appreciate they're all devoted members of the "I'm
> gonna write a book" brigade, usually reprinting other peoples
> original material with no attribution), the point is posters to
> rec.boats need the info, not which book or series of books they
> should "buy" or "take it to a dealer",

Unless each person wishes to recreate the entire scope of human
experience for himself/herself, learning from the available
millions of cumulative years worth of others' experiences is the
way to go. It separates us from the beasts. Books are a very
reasonable way to accomplish that goal, even those that merely
parrot old information. It is still infinitely more than
nothing.

Some books are better than others, and some bibliographies are
more appropriate than others for certain audiences. In light of
the history of the FAQ and its intended audience, it is not
necessary to dissect this aspect of the FAQ any further.

As for the notion of including the information instead of citing
it: if recommending a first-rate book can answer a question better
than regurgitating an entire screed in a FAQ, then maybe that's
the best way to do it. People used to be much more receptive to
the idea of "look it up" as a response to a question, more willing
to lift a finger to affect their own lives and not depend on
others to serve them in the manner to which they want to be
accustomed. Now we want every bit of information available how,
where, and when we demand it. Or perhaps there's some middle
ground.

Quote:
> (v)        Club addresses, what a joke ! (they need the security of a
> herd, their institution, the team or whatever just to visit the
> toilet & I'm not talking about our habit of going in pairs),

This is part of that "human experience" thing mentioned above.
Some folks find it more expedient to allign with a group of common
interest to learn more and share more about their own interests,
than to go it alone. Anybody who frequents this newsgroup is part
of such a club. It stikes me as paradoxical that one who seeks
exchange with others in this medium could find fault with the
notion that others seek to do the same elsewhere. If security in
numbers were unnecessary and undesirable, Usenet itself would not
be.

Quote:
> (vi)       Lots of emphasis on "organised competive" boating, mostly
> sail, I'm guessing the trailer sailer "squadron". (after all
> like all "organised competive" sports types, they think if you
> can't do something totally useless for mankind better than
> someone else, then you can't be a good person & there's that
> safety in numbers thing again.)

What do you call 2 sailboats underway and in sight of each other?
A race.

Alright, you got me here. What good for mankind are pro sports on
the tele, music art & theatre, jet skis waterskis &
sportfishing?

Anwser: They are fun. Fun to do, sometimes fun to watch. All work
and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Once you allow that doing
something fun is OK, then you are just haggling over the details
when discussing it any further.

Honing one's technique through competition with self or others as
a way of surmounting mediocrity is both a mean and an end towards
enjoyment. It may not meet with another's 'higher standard', but
lots of folks nevertheless do it who might very well call what we
do here "useless".

Quote:
> (vii)      It's really just spam.

It's really just old rec.boats information not applicable to the
current group, probably not deserving of the editorializations it
evoked.

Anyway, we might take it upon ourselves to come up with our own
FAQ for the group as it now. I have some ideas on how to bring
this to fruition if any are interested in hearing them.


 
 
 

Just the FAQ's, ma'am...

Post by Del Cecch » Wed, 02 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> It's more fun in APL.

> --

> Harry Krause
> - - - - - - - - - - - -

Perhaps you and Skipper would be kind enough to write your Bayliner
posts (and political posts too) in APL.  That way they would only be one
line and no one else could read them.  

:-)

del cecchi

 
 
 

Just the FAQ's, ma'am...

Post by Jim & Anna Lohs » Wed, 02 Dec 1998 04:00:00

I am new to this group, however I have been reading the replies for 2
months.  I totally agree with your thoughts Del.  However, I do not feel
that any imput will change certain individuals thoughts.  I do appreciate
the topics and discussions when it pertains to boating!!!!!!  Learned alot
so far.
Quote:


>> It's more fun in APL.

>> --

>> Harry Krause
>> - - - - - - - - - - - -

>Perhaps you and Skipper would be kind enough to write your Bayliner
>posts (and political posts too) in APL.  That way they would only be one
>line and no one else could read them.

>:-)

>del cecchi

 
 
 

Just the FAQ's, ma'am...

Post by Peter W. Me » Thu, 03 Dec 1998 04:00:00


<K Smith wrote>

Quote:
>> (iv)   the usual endless list of "book titles" (I sure you'll
>> particularly appreciate they're all devoted members of the "I'm
>> gonna write a book" brigade, usually reprinting other peoples
>> original material with no attribution), the point is posters to
>> rec.boats need the info, not which book or series of books they
>> should "buy" or "take it to a dealer",

>Unless each person wishes to recreate the entire scope of human
>experience for himself/herself, learning from the available
>millions of cumulative years worth of others' experiences is the
>way to go. It separates us from the beasts. Books are a very
>reasonable way to accomplish that goal, even those that merely
>parrot old information. It is still infinitely more than
>nothing.

It's a FAQ (frequently asked questions). Two of the several
recurring threads in rec.boats were, "What is your favorite
book about...?" and "What is your favorite book of nautical
fiction?" with "What are some other books in the xxx series?"
following as a close third. FAQs.

As a side note, John Hughes is very careful to post the
r.b FAQ and the r.b.c Charter in such a way that they can
be easily filtered out. Newcomers *SHOULD* be exposed
to each of those posts for a while. By the time they don't
need to see them regularly, they should have developed
the newsgroup skills to filter them out.

--
  --Pete

rec.boats caps at:
http://www.msen.com/~pwmeek/cap-main.html

 
 
 

Just the FAQ's, ma'am...

Post by Peter W. Me » Fri, 04 Dec 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>Since creating a charter for rec.boats is apparently an involved, complex
>undertaking...but...simply writing and posting an FAQ is not...why don't
>Marcus, Rod and Peter exchange email and create a current FAQ for
>rec.boats.  

>You three are all still active in the group (Tom & Paul are here much less
>frequently), and have the background and knowledge to put together an FAQ,
>which could than be posted on a monthly basis, and discussed for revisions
>by the group...only if necessary.  

>Just the basics would be needed, on such things as newsgroup purpose, NO
>for sale or commercial posts, and appropriate and inappropriate topics, in
>a very general sense.

I even question the need for a full posting of the FAQ on a regular
basis. If it was done up as a web page -- especially if it was
done with care to make it accessible by text-only browsers like
Lynx -- then a simple pointer could be posted on a regular basis.
Regulars could even put a pointer in their .sigs to the FAQ. I
do agree with Ja'me that a FAQ could be constructed to take the
place of a charter. It would have no authority, but then charters
don't have very *much* authority.

As to who should do it, I'd like to see more input from new
members of the group. I'm very much aware that my personal
opinions are not truly reflective of the majority. I'd like
to see representation from the *ancien regime*, simply because
I think change should be resisted -- not prevented, but resisted
enough that only the uncontestably good changes are made.

I do think the FAQ should contain many of the things that Ja'me
thinks could be left out. If it were done as a web page or pages,
then they could be separated from the main body so that only
those interested would have to wade through them. I invite
anyone interested to have a look at the rec.crafts.knots FAQ
(which I maintain) to see one possible approach. URL below.

--
  --Pete

http://www.msen.com/~pwmeek/knots/knot-faq.html