"Anchor weights, (also known as chums, kellets, sentinels, anchor angels) have been used for generations to anchor boats more securely. They almost double the holding power of the anchor and reduce the working load of the anchor by up to 50%. They are an advanced technique in safe, secure anchoring."
"The secret is to have it off the seabed at all stages of the tide."
"All chain anchoring....Trailer boats, power or sail .How it is attached .Anchoring techniques .How catenary affects anchor holding..Have a look at the video .See demonstrations at boatshows "
Michael wrote:> "Anchor weights, (also known as chums, kellets, sentinels, anchor> angels) have been used for generations to anchor boats more securely.> They almost double the holding power of the anchor and reduce the> working load of the anchor by up to 50%. They are an advanced> technique in safe, secure anchoring.">
"The secret is to have it off the seabed at all stages of the tide.">
"All chain anchoring....Trailer boats, power or sail .How it is> attached .Anchoring techniques> .How catenary affects anchor holding..Have a look at the video .See> demonstrations at boatshows ">
A handy gadget to have, but not a necessity. It is useful if you find yourself anchoring in limited scope situations. However, I wouldn't feel happy relying on one in high winds since its advantage goes away when the rode is stretched tight.
"Jeff" <jeffmo@nospam-at-all-sv-loki.com> wrote in message news:e4adnXcpmd_XM8jfRVn-gw@comcast.com...> Michael wrote:>> "Anchor weights, (also known as chums, kellets, sentinels, anchor>> angels) have been used for generations to anchor boats more securely.>> They almost double the holding power of the anchor and reduce the>> working load of the anchor by up to 50%. They are an advanced>> technique in safe, secure anchoring.">>
"The secret is to have it off the seabed at all stages of the tide.">>
"All chain anchoring....Trailer boats, power or sail .How it is>> attached .Anchoring techniques>> .How catenary affects anchor holding..Have a look at the video .See>> demonstrations at boatshows ">>
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:03:52 -0400, Jeff <jeffmo@nospam-at-all-sv-loki.com> wrote:
A handy gadget to have, but not a necessity. It is useful if you find >yourself anchoring in limited scope situations. However, I wouldn't >feel happy relying on one in high winds since its advantage goes away >when the rode is stretched tight.
"A main, or “Working Anchor” should hold up to 30 knots of wind. A “Storm Anchor” is for winds up to 42 knots. Remember that as the wind speed doubles, the holding requirement quadruples!"
Doug Dotson wrote:> "Jeff" <jeffmo@nospam-at-all-sv-loki.com> wrote in message > news:e4adnXcpmd_XM8jfRVn-gw@comcast.com...>
Michael wrote:>>
"Anchor weights, (also known as chums, kellets, sentinels, anchor>>>angels) have been used for generations to anchor boats more securely.>>>They almost double the holding power of the anchor and reduce the>>>working load of the anchor by up to 50%. They are an advanced>>>technique in safe, secure anchoring.">>>
"The secret is to have it off the seabed at all stages of the tide.">>>
"All chain anchoring....Trailer boats, power or sail .How it is>>>attached .Anchoring techniques>>>.How catenary affects anchor holding..Have a look at the video .See>>>demonstrations at boatshows ">>>
It is if you do any serious cruising. Close in anchoring with limited scope> is a way of life.
I guess I'm not a serious cruiser. When an anchorage gets too crowded for proper anchoring, I move elsewhere.
It is useful if you find yourself anchoring in limited scope situations.>
Right.>
However, I wouldn't feel happy relying on one in high winds since its >>advantage goes away when the rode is stretched tight.>
No one suggested that a kellet is advantageous in this situation. In a high > wind> situation one must let out additional scope. No substitutes for that.>
The web site makes a number of claims that might lead one too believe you could get by with a smaller anchor in a blow. "reduces loads by 50%", etc.
Michael wrote:> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:03:52 -0400, Jeff> <jeffmo@nospam-at-all-sv-loki.com> wrote:>
A handy gadget to have, but not a necessity. It is useful if you find >>yourself anchoring in limited scope situations. However, I wouldn't >>feel happy relying on one in high winds since its advantage goes away >>when the rode is stretched tight.>
"A main, or “Working Anchor” should hold up to 30 knots of wind. A> “Storm Anchor” is for winds up to 42 knots. Remember that as the wind> speed doubles, the holding requirement quadruples!"
Do you have a point?
This is the reason why the minimum anchor should not be used; if you plan to anchor overnight (i.e. unattended) you should always go up at least one size. My primary should hold up to 50 or so knots, but I would generally have a second anchor set if I expected that.
My point is that what you call a "working anchor" does not become a storm anchor simply by adding a kellet.
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 20:12:27 -0400, Jeff <jeffmo@nospam-at-all-sv-loki.com> wrote:
Michael wrote:>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:03:52 -0400, Jeff>> <jeffmo@nospam-at-all-sv-loki.com> wrote:>>
A handy gadget to have, but not a necessity. It is useful if you find >>>yourself anchoring in limited scope situations. However, I wouldn't >>>feel happy relying on one in high winds since its advantage goes away >>>when the rode is stretched tight.>>
"A main, or “Working Anchor” should hold up to 30 knots of wind. A>> “Storm Anchor” is for winds up to 42 knots. Remember that as the wind>> speed doubles, the holding requirement quadruples!">
Do you have a point?
The above was quoted from the URL that was provided as a reference.
I think, and believe that it is common that - winds in excess of 40 knots you would be using more than one anchor and the URL:
Illustrates 6 different anchoring situations, with 3 refering to storm conditions.
I know more than one experienced crusier that do infact have a storm anchor...the old Hershoff style fishermans anchor that was about 70 lbs which they called their "storm achor" generally these can be taken apart and stored below.
Also many experienced crusiers go for one or two levels oversize from that which is recomended for their boat as an anchor. And have an min. or 2 and some asy many as 4 anchors.
An important factor in anchors is their ability to reset, it is believed that "fluke"style anchors are NOT as good or capable as a Bruce or CRQ style anchors, in ther resetting ability. Althought the fortress exceeds them in holding power, with these style anchor the bahamian style mooring makes sense....and why fortress includes a discussion on secondary anchors.
GPS's and some depth sounds have anchor alarms.>
This is the reason why the minimum anchor should not be used; if you >plan to anchor overnight (i.e. unattended) you should always go up at >least one size. My primary should hold up to 50 or so knots, but I >would generally have a second anchor set if I expected that.>
My point is that what you call a "working anchor" does not become a >storm anchor simply by adding a kellet.
I didnt suggest that...but that "as the wind>> speed doubles, the holding requirement quadruples!" as quoated from fortress anchors
The kelt does 2 things effectively: 1 It acts as a snubber 2 Keeps the chain on the bottom (when not in sorm conditions) and exponentially increases the holding power (vertical pull out) of the anchor.
I havent used this tech. myself but the cantanery principle does make alot of sense to me. Is a kelt necessary? Since I dont know of many that use one, probably not as they use other means of snubbing the anchor line, if at all. If I had the experience of using one, then I would decide if it was necessary. Thats why the original post sought others thoughts, either in principle or from usage experience. Still, i like the idea and it is something that you could probably make yourself....I like those kind of ideas....
Michael wrote:>>>"A main, or “Working Anchor” should hold up to 30 knots of wind. A>>>“Storm Anchor” is for winds up to 42 knots. Remember that as the wind>>>speed doubles, the holding requirement quadruples!">>
Do you have a point?>
The above was quoted from the URL that was provided as a reference.
OK, no point but you just want to review everything you've read about anchoring. That's OK, this all gets covered here every 2 or 3 weeks, it seems.
...
I know more than one experienced crusier that do infact have a storm> anchor...the old Hershoff style fishermans anchor that was about 70> lbs which they called their "storm achor" generally these can be taken> apart and stored below.
Large Fortresses are gaining favor in this regard - more bang for the buck (or pound). However, in a major storm the wind will shift, so you need more than one anchor that can handle a serious load. A friend is fond is fond of pointing to a small Danforth he keeps on the stern and saying, "That's the anchor that held us in the 'Storm of the Century.' "
He now carrys a large Fortress in the bilge, but for that storm he had an array of three anchors set - the largest a 35 pound plow. All had large scope - I think the Danforth was set in a mud bank so at low tide it actually had negative scope!
...
My point is that what you call a "working anchor" does not become a >>storm anchor simply by adding a kellet.>
I didnt suggest that...but that "as the wind> speed doubles, the holding requirement quadruples!" > as quoated from fortress anchors>
The kelt does 2 things effectively:> 1> It acts as a snubber
In light air it has similar effect. In heavy air, however, its "snubbing power" evaporates. This is not a problem if rope is included in the rode, but an all chain rode needs a proper snubber.
Of course, I'm not saying not to use the kellet in heavy air, only that it shouldn't be relied on. In this case it acts as though you had slightly more (or larger) chain.
Keeps the chain on the bottom (when not in sorm conditions) and> exponentially increases the holding power (vertical pull out) of the> anchor.
"Exponentially"??? I think not. In fact, it adds little if proper scope is used. Its utility is also diminished if you use a significant amount of chain on the rode. In other words, it can be very useful if you use 6 feet of chain and 3:1 scope. If you have 50 feet of chain an always use at least 5:1 scope, the utility is diminished.
I havent used this tech. myself but the cantanery principle does make> alot of sense to me.
The "catenary principle" is often used when discussing anchors. It is nonsense, only used by those who think a mathematical sounding word is needed to explain what's going on. A catenary is the shape assumed by a chain suspended by its two ends. A suspension bridge is the classic example; a chain anchor rode is another. However, the reserve holding power of a chain is in the part that is still lying on the ground, not the part that is lifted up and is in the catenary shape. The reason is this: if a rode is assuming the catenary shape, the difference between that and fully extended (i.e. "rod-straight") is small, maybe a foot or so. The "reserve" is in the distance the boat can move when hit by a wave, not the force it takes to straighten out to chain. Thus, when someone draws the picture with the nice curve, and says "look at this catenary, that's what gives the smooth ride and holding power," it means they don't really understand what's going on.
The kellet works because it forces the rode out of the catenary shape. The rode can be viewed as two parts separated by the kellet: The part nearest the anchor sees a shallow approach so it acts as if the scope were larger. The part near the boat acts as if the rode had a larger chain at the anchor end, which needs a larger force to lift it off the bottom. However, both of these affects diminish in stronger wind, as the kellet is raised and the rode straightens.
Is a kelt necessary? Since I dont know of many> that use one, probably not as they use other means of snubbing the> anchor line, if at all. If I had the experience of using one, then I> would decide if it was necessary. Thats why the original post sought> others thoughts, either in principle or from usage experience.> Still, i like the idea and it is something that you could probably> make yourself....I like those kind of ideas....
As I said at first, handy but not necessary. They are most useful if you use minimal chain and scope. They can also be handy in reducing the tendency to swing. I used one often on my first boat, which was too small to carry all the ground tackle I wanted, and didn't have a windlass. I used one a few times to reduce horsing on my second boat, but also found I could just drop a weight to the bottom on very short short scope to accomplish the same thing - this is sometimes called a hammerlock anchor. Now I rely on a good anchor, 50 feet of chain, and a windlass, and use a second anchor for security.
BTW, the friends I mentioned earlier have lived mostly at anchor for the last 25 years. They frequently deploy a kellet. They've tried a number of shapes, I think they now they use a set of diving weights strapped around the rode. I'll ask them about it the next time they pass through. (They're wintering now in Newfoundland!)
Michael wrote: I havent used this tech. myself but the cantanery principle does make> alot of sense to me. Is a kelt necessary? Since I dont know of many> that use one, probably not as they use other means of snubbing the> anchor line, if at all. If I had the experience of using one, then I> would decide if it was necessary. Thats why the original post sought> others thoughts, either in principle or from usage experience.> Still, i like the idea and it is something that you could probably> make yourself....I like those kind of ideas....
"When the current or wind forces gain the upper hand the rode will be> pulled taut and the sentinel will be "out of the system" until it is> needed again. >
"I wouldn't sail without it!">
It seems that Ed's opinion is that its a necessity for him.>
Yes, but there are two points here: First, Ed and Carolyn have lived aboard for 25 years, most of that at anchor. Anyone who spends 300 nights a year on the hook needs a full arsenal of tricks in their kit.
Second, you asked about the "Anchor Buddy," which costs about $200. Ed's version is a few old diving weights. When I need one, I use a dinghy anchor or a length of chain tied up and run down the rode on a large shackle. The "Buddy" is not a necessity, but you should carry enough parts in your spare gear bag to fashion a kellet when needed.
Also it seems important enough for him to include it as an article on> his web presence.>
Ed writes about a few odd things
Summer of 1977 - segment>
Interesting story, reminds me of begining of my first cruise in> Bahamas.
This was a traumatic and formative episode for them. Ed's thoughts about the Sentinel were triggered by having the rode eaten away by the tip of the keel. BTW, this happened in 1979, not '77 - I have to remind Ed he's not quite as old as he thinks! I remember it well, since I rode out the same storm on my boat, although I only had 40 knots, not the 60+ knots that they had further East. A few days later they called and asked me to fly up and help them bring the boat back.
...
He proceeds to give excellent advice on setting the Danforth> anchor....
Many of Ed's lessons have stayed with me over the years, but two stand out: First, if an anchor doesn't set right away, it isn't worth dragging it all over the anchorage. Haul, and retry. If it doesn't set on the second try, something is wrong, and it isn't worth trying the same anchor in the same location a third time.
The other point is that a Danforth doesn't need a lot of chain, especially in mud. Having little or no chain allows you to "fish" for the bottom and feel it as it digs in. Ed sometimes uses no chain, but when he and I tried that with my new Fortress, we had trouble getting it to go to the bottom in a current! I use about 8 feet of chain on my Fortress now. However, my primary anchor, a 35# Delta, has 50 feet of chain.
Ed also make excellent images....the rendered image are professional> well done
Rendering has become Ed's hobby - his images are startlingly realistic!
