On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:23 AM, skimmer <skimmer_at_enter.net> wrote: > > How long does the Government go allowing BP to keep dancing. BP does not > act > as if their collective lives absolutely depend on their successfully > shutting the well before the gulf becomes a total oil storage reservoir. > So.... what would you like the "Government" to do? If you think that the Government - or any government - knows how to fix this any better than BP or ExxonMobil, or Chevron or Shell then you have a lot more faith in government than I have. A well-known talking head from New Orleans was featured on ABC crying about how Obama needed to get down there and do something... and get some tankers out there to pick up the oil. Maybe he hadn't see the flotilla of tankers, workboats, tugs, skimmers, etc. out there already. I'm thinking that adding a President from Chicago to the mix might not be the perfect recipe to get the job done. The residents of the Gulf, having profited mightily from Big Oil for the past 40 years, have suddenly discovered that the presence of 3500 drilling and production rigs operating within 100 miles of their coastline might not be as perfect a situation as they had thought. There is one for-sure method to stop the well. Drill an intersecting well and use that to control the one that's out of control. This is a known method and will do the job. Too bad it's going to take until August. Everything else they're doing - and I'm pretty sure the best engineering minds in the USA are working on this - is a stopgap. Right now we're pretty much at the mercy of the people who got us into this; namely, British Petroleum (or "BP" as they'd prefer to be known now). Lest you forget, only six months ago a significant percentage of this Nation's population was calling for more offshore oil drilling with nary a thought to the risks involved. In fact, so many were demanding it that the Obama administration bent to the pressure and declared that their opposition to future offshore drilling was tempered. When over half of a country's voting population seem to want something it's very difficult for a government that's chosen by those voters to ignore it. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Craig wrote: >There is one for-sure method to stop the well. Drill an intersecting well >and use that to control the one that's out of control. This is a known >method and will do the job. Too bad it's going to take until August. >Everything else they're doing - and I'm pretty sure the best engineering >minds in the USA are working on this - is a stopgap. G'Day Craig, I'm told that even the intersecting well approach is uncertain because of the difficulty of accurately locating the intersection at that depth. BP's report on their 'top kill' attempt to fill the leaking pipe-borehole with drilling mud looked as if it might work when they were able to maintain some kind of seal while pressure was applied to the mud and they hoped eventually to pump cement. When they reported failure as the pressure was removed it made me wonder if pumping cement and maintaining pressure until the cement had hardened might work. I assume that it must have been thought of and rejected because of complications with the extreme depth or some other complication. Wondered if you knew anything about that kind of approach and the associated difficulties? All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
News reports last night from expert talking heads indicated that the industry now has the ability to fine tune these intersecting wells in order to drill right into the problem pipe. Think they said they used acoustics to zero in on the pipe and drill through it, at which time they'd pump in mud/concrete/whatever to stop up the works and turn off the flow. (Or so it says in the fine print.) Again, according to the experts, this is a significant and fairly recent improvement over past abilities. Joq -----Original Message----- From: owner-paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net [mailto:owner-paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net] On Behalf Of PeterO Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 10:22 PM To: 'Craig Jungers'; PaddleWise_at_paddlewise.net Subject: RE: [Paddlewise] Oil Spill Plans Craig wrote: >There is one for-sure method to stop the well. Drill an intersecting >well and use that to control the one that's out of control. This is a >known method and will do the job. Too bad it's going to take until August. >Everything else they're doing - and I'm pretty sure the best >engineering minds in the USA are working on this - is a stopgap. G'Day Craig, I'm told that even the intersecting well approach is uncertain because of the difficulty of accurately locating the intersection at that depth. BP's report on their 'top kill' attempt to fill the leaking pipe-borehole with drilling mud looked as if it might work when they were able to maintain some kind of seal while pressure was applied to the mud and they hoped eventually to pump cement. When they reported failure as the pressure was removed it made me wonder if pumping cement and maintaining pressure until the cement had hardened might work. I assume that it must have been thought of and rejected because of complications with the extreme depth or some other complication. Wondered if you knew anything about that kind of approach and the associated difficulties? All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Joq wrote: >News reports last night from expert talking heads indicated that the industry now has >the ability to fine tune these intersecting wells in order to drill right into the problem pipe. >Think they said they used acoustics to zero in on the pipe and drill through it, at which time >they'd pump in mud/concrete/whatever to stop up the works and turn off the flow. >(Or so it says in the fine print.) Again, according to the experts, this is a significant >and fairly recent improvement over past abilities. G'Day, Thanks for that. Its good to hear something positive happening. Wonder if its pulse echo, doppler or vibrations from the flow that they are homing in on? Any reports you happen to hear would be appreciated as its an area my daughter works on. Also we heard just now that BP had successfully trimmed one of the leaking pipes and were hoping to divert most of the flow as a temporary measure, but that may be old news at your end. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Joq wrote: >News reports last night from expert talking heads indicated that the >industry now has the ability to fine tune these intersecting wells >in order to drill right into the problem pipe. Think they said they >used acoustics to zero in on the pipe and drill through it PeterO wrote: >Wonder if its pulse echo, doppler or vibrations from the flow that they are homing in on? G'Day, P.S. Just occurred to me they would probably use all three in a combined sensor. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
G'Day, On Saturday I was comparing two sea kayaks: a 5m round hulled Pittarak (similar to an Icefloe) vs. a 5.5m chined Tahe Greenland style kayak. Both boats have very little rocker and rely on edging if you want to make a sharp sweep turn. The Tahe has a much shallower deck and lower wind resistance so that ability to turn using a forward sweep is symmetrical independent of orientation to the wind. Selecting the best technique for turning a Pittarak depend significantly on its orientation to the wind. I noticed that the Tahe responded very precisely to the forward sweep stroke and with virtually no momentum i.e. as if it were critically damped, perhaps by turbulence or some other hydraulic resistance at the chined section of the hull, which extended either side of the midsection along about half the length of the boat. In conditions of low wind the Pittarak continues to turn long after a single sweep provided one holds the edge. The Tahe perhaps needed a couple more sweeps to turn the boat through 180 degrees. I'm not suggesting that one hull is 'better' than the other, but would be curious to understand the pro's and cons of these different characteristics and whether they apply in general to most rounded hull vs. chined kayaks. All the best, Peter *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 4:02 PM, PeterO <rebyl_kayak_at_energysustained.com>wrote: > > I'm not suggesting that one hull is 'better' than the other, but would be > curious to understand the pro's and cons of these different characteristics > and whether they apply in general to most rounded hull vs. chined kayaks. > > Matt Broze is the man to answer your question. And Matt's not some wimpy opinionated paddler whose tests consist of paddling a boat around and then submitting his "opinion". Not, mind you, that Matt doesn't have some opinions. (snicker). At one point Matt had a database of paddling characteristics for every boat introduced into the Puget Sound (Pacific North West) area. This was made considerably easier because for over 25 years we had a kayak symposium at Port Townsend where manufacturers introduced their boats. He may lose ground now with boats introduced that he can't catch up with but perhaps not. I don't know all the criteria Matt uses but they include 180 and 360 degree turns on edge, flat, with rudder and flat, with rudder and edged.... well, you get the idea. I don't see how it's possible to keep such tests absolutely objective but Matt's look to be about as close as you could get given the restrictions of a paddler climbing into a boat and paddling it around with a stopwatch. As far as I'm concerned, hull designs seem to follow marketing trends. Right now we're in the middle of a hard-chined Brit-Boat with skeg era. A few years ago it was rounder hulls with rudders. The market also seems to be headed into a period where more hull designs will offer greater rocker which will, in turn, enhance maneuverability. Whether or not these new designs actually reflect what paddlers want... or if, like fishing lures, they are made to capture the fancies of the paddlers first and maybe only then reflect performance issues farther down the line. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Craig wrote: >Matt Broze is the man to answer your question. G'Day Craig, Completely agree and of course would add John Winters as well. Don't know if they have the time or patience for this sort of question these days, though I know Matt still responds to Paddlewise occasionally. The post didn't make it into the Paddlewise summary, which I think is what Matt and John read so I may send them a post back channel. BTW as luck would have it the Pittarak is a very old design with a rounded hull and skeg and turns out of a broach back into surfing mode just beautifully, which may have something to do with the characteristic I described. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
PeterO wrote: >>>>>>>>Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 09:05:20 +1000 From: "PeterO" <rebyl_kayak_at_energysustained.com> Subject: RE: [Paddlewise] Comparing sweeps chine and round hull - Intertia vs critically damped response Craig wrote: >Matt Broze is the man to answer your question. G'Day Craig, Completely agree and of course would add John Winters as well. Don't know if they have the time or patience for this sort of question these days, though I know Matt still responds to Paddlewise occasionally. The post didn't make it into the Paddlewise summary, which I think is what Matt and John read so I may send them a post back channel. BTW as luck would have it the Pittarak is a very old design with a rounded hull and skeg and turns out of a broach back into surfing mode just beautifully, which may have something to do with the characteristic I described. All the best, PeterO<<<<<<<<<<< I get the digest. It used to be it came in the serial order of the time and date the posts were sent but for several years now the posts in it have been seriously out of order and sometimes the original post don't appear until after a discussion of them in a previous digest. This is very confusing sometimes. Peter is also correct that his original post has not yet appeared in the digest at all so I have only a little idea of what the actual question was (other than the post's title from the above). I'm back from vacation so I might try to take a shot at it if I knew what the question was. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Matt wrote: >his original post has not yet appeared in the digest at all >so I have only a little idea of what the actual question was Thanks Matt, On Saturday I was comparing two sea kayaks: a 5m round hulled Pittarak (similar to an Icefloe - http://www.pittarak.com.au/pittaraksingle.html) vs. a 5m Tahe Greenland style kayak with a chined hull that extended either side of the midsection along about half the length of the boat http://www.tahemarine.com/?module=Product&id=49. Neither boat has much rocker, they both rely on edging to make a sharp sweep turn. The links are given to show what they look like, I don't have any commercial interest in either. There were two differences in turning performance that puzzled me: 1. In conditions of low wind the Pittarak continues to turn for quite a while after a single sweep, provided I hold the edge, whereas the Tahe responded very precisely to the forward sweep stroke, only turning as the paddle moved almost as if it were damped, perhaps by turbulence or some other hydraulic resistance at the chined section of the hull? 2. The Tahe has a much shallower deck (and less knee room) with lower wind resistance so its ability to turn using a forward sweep on one side or the other was symmetrical i.e.. independent of orientation to the wind and there was no need to consider reverse sweeps. On the other hand the fastest sweep (forward or reverse) to turn a Pittarak depends on its orientation to the wind and the direction in which the boat is being turned. I don't really understand why this should be but am told it's commonplace with boats that have high deck wind resistance. I'm not suggesting that one hull is 'better' than the other, but I'm curious to understand the reasons for these different characteristics, their pro's and cons, and whether the first inertial vs. damped characteristic, can be generalised to most rounded hull vs. chined kayaks. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
A couple difference I would note on the two boats. Pittarak has a high back deck and Tahe Greenland has a low back deck. When leaned to turn the high deck will tend to lift the boat slightly and the low deck will allow the boat to sink down. I notice with many Greenland style boats that the low back deck will become awash with a relatively small amount of lean. When turning this allows water to pile up on the back deck which will tend to slow down any turn. Nick On Jun 9, 2010, at 8:48 AM, PeterO wrote: > Matt wrote: >> his original post has not yet appeared in the digest at all >> so I have only a little idea of what the actual question was > > Thanks Matt, > > On Saturday I was comparing two sea kayaks: a 5m round hulled Pittarak > (similar to an Icefloe - http://www.pittarak.com.au/pittaraksingle.html) vs. > a 5m Tahe Greenland style kayak with a chined hull that extended either side > of the midsection along about half the length of the boat > http://www.tahemarine.com/?module=Product&id=49. Neither boat has much > rocker, they both rely on edging to make a sharp sweep turn. The links are > given to show what they look like, I don't have any commercial interest in > either. > > There were two differences in turning performance that puzzled me: > > 1. In conditions of low wind the Pittarak continues to turn for quite a > while after a single sweep, provided I hold the edge, whereas the Tahe > responded very precisely to the forward sweep stroke, only turning as the > paddle moved almost as if it were damped, perhaps by turbulence or some > other hydraulic resistance at the chined section of the hull? > > 2. The Tahe has a much shallower deck (and less knee room) with lower wind > resistance so its ability to turn using a forward sweep on one side or the > other was symmetrical i.e.. independent of orientation to the wind and there > was no need to consider reverse sweeps. On the other hand the fastest sweep > (forward or reverse) to turn a Pittarak depends on its orientation to the > wind and the direction in which the boat is being turned. I don't really > understand why this should be but am told it's commonplace with boats that > have high deck wind resistance. > > I'm not suggesting that one hull is 'better' than the other, but I'm curious > to understand the reasons for these different characteristics, their pro's > and cons, and whether the first inertial vs. damped characteristic, can be > generalised to most rounded hull vs. chined kayaks. Nick Schade Guillemot Kayaks 54 South Rd Groton, CT 06340 USA Ph/Fx: (860) 659-8847 http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/ *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Matt commented: >SNIP I suspect turning into the wind you are willing to lean further to the >inside (and into the wind) while low bracing on a reverse sweep than you are >willing do to the outside (leaning downwind) doing a forward stroke. Turning >downwind you are in the opposite situation where you get to lean into the wind >with the outside lean and must lean downwind doing a reverse sweep. Since you >naturally lean into a wind some to compensate for the wind strength (to >maintain balance) you aren't so far off balance when leaning into the wind >than when leaning at an equal angle downwind. G'day Matt, I had a chance to try your suggestions in about 15 knot wind and flat water on Sunday and again the bow sweep strokes worked effectively with and against the wind. There may have been a tendency for the bow sweep to also push the boat a bit forward when turning against the wind. The stern sweep against the wind did little more than send the boat in a straight line backwards, I was edging it but nowhere near as much as with the forward sweep. The ease of turning with the boat moving was also evident. I'm almost completely convinced by your ideas now and will work on improving my edge during that stern sweep and see if the problem disappears. Many thanks and all the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
P.S, Matt I should have added that the only reason I'm not completely certain is the need for more and better measurements on my reverse sweep, nothing to do with the explanation you gave, which is very credible. All the best, PeterO G'day Matt, I had a chance to try your suggestions in about 15 knot wind and flat water on Sunday and again the bow sweep strokes worked effectively with and against the wind. There may have been a tendency for the bow sweep to also push the boat a bit forward when turning against the wind. The stern sweep against the wind did little more than send the boat in a straight line backwards, I was edging it but nowhere near as much as with the forward sweep. The ease of turning with the boat moving was also evident. I'm almost completely convinced by your ideas now and will work on improving my edge during that stern sweep and see if the problem disappears. Many thanks and all the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
P.S. Just to add that contrary to the pictures on the links both boats were rudderless and neither had skegs deployed. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
PeterO wrote -- Thanks for that. Its good to hear something positive happening. Wonder if its pulse echo, doppler or vibrations from the flow that they are homing in on? First, not sure that any of this should be taken as positive -- at least yet. As to the sensors, I may have mis-heard the PBS report last night, since http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/deepwaterhorizon/7035886.html indicates that they use magnetic sensors in the drill bit to hit the bad pipe on final approach. Other reports indicate that surveys of the original well provide a high degree of accurate positional information, allowing the new drill to go down 10,000 feet, turn and go another 8,000 feet on the diagonal to intercept the bad pipe -- that's the seven-inch-wide bad pipe. Again, note the "says here in the fine print" reference earlier. Joq *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:53 PDT