Rocker Stoppers(?)

scot · Post by **scot** » Dec 7th, '06, 22:14

Uncle Vic...your capacity to entertain yourself is impressive.

Scot

Tony Meola · Post by **Tony Meola** » Dec 7th, '06, 22:28

Ok one more time to my scale theory. If we follow Bruce's logic which actually makes the most sense, that can be proven using the scale since the amount of pull exerted at the greater depth from trying to lift all that water in the column would great a greater amount of pull on the scale. The weight of the rope could not make that much differance. Plus we could weigh the rope and compensate for it. Tony Meola

ScottD · Post by **ScottD** » Dec 7th, '06, 23:26

O.K., you guys have driven this down to such a low level that it's not worth arguing. If you want to believe more water piled up adds resistance, good for you. Just make sure you don't dive to deep, you won't be able to get back up, don't anchor deeper than 100' or you'll loose yor anchor to the water resistance, and remember, seawater weighs over 62 lbs. per sq. ft. so light tackle fishing in deep water will be tuff unless you can get the fish to swim up to ya. And don't forget, a column of water can be horizontal to the direction of the movement as well, so try not to troll you baits more than 6' ft. from the boat (372 lb. of force) unless they are skipping on the surface, which we'll have to get one of the engineers to figure out that load.

ScottD (the smart ass)

Sean B · Post by **Sean B** » Dec 8th, '06, 06:52

Funny stuff Scott.

I think we should explore that horizontal water column of yours some more. Since the water in front of the dragging device is moving these great distances, we could conceivably troll a few of these rocker stoppers say 20 feet behind the boat. Since they are pushing water so far forward, along the water column, it would be hard to get them moving for sure, and of course they would start pushing water against the boat transom 20 feet away. After you got your boat/drag system moving, and the water started pushing against the transom of the boat, you could cut the engines and troll around all day on all that energy for free... This must be how sea anchors work.

But smart ass comments aside, I think Bruce is right too, in the sense that there is some "threshold depth" above which some of the water is being pushed above the water surface, forming the dome he decsribed, and then rolling sideways away from the drag device, and thus lowering the drag or pull resistance. That effect would depend on the speed you pulled it up and at the speeds we're pulling on it, probably limited to some small multiple of the width of the device- perhaps 1.5. So say the number is 1.5 then a 2 foot diameter rocker stopper would exert less force when pulled from three feet of depth or less. Any deeper and the water is just moving around the drag device, and the water has the same density at any depth, so the drag force remains constant no matter how much deeper you place it. So everybody is right. How's that for an explanation?

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Dec 8th, '06, 07:09

If we follow Bruce's logic which actually makes the most sense

Hey, don't follow me. I have a tendancy to drink the kool-aid.

Or more often, those that try to understand my thinking all of a sudden get real thirsty.

Sean B · Post by **Sean B** » Dec 8th, '06, 07:49

Something else to consider: I don't these things will work too well.

Once the boat has rocked once and pulled them up on one side, they aren't going to settle back down too quickly due to their drag resistance going down. When the boat rocks back the line wil go slack because the stoppers would not sink very much. Then the boat rocks back the other way and you've just pulling on a slack line. But they will drop a little, so when the slack is finally taken away, the RLDT is rocking at full speed when the line finds the rocker stopper again, and you get a sudden impact load or snap on the line. Maybe they should be called "cleat snappers."

I think they'll slow one boat roll each way, then hover around ineffectively at whatever depth equates to the degree of rocking you boat wants to do that day.

OKay I'm going to try and get paid to think now

Capt. Mike Holmes · Post by **Capt. Mike Holmes** » Dec 8th, '06, 09:59

Damn! I'm going to have to read this stuff more carefully! I really thought rocker stoppers for a 28 was a question concerning Kevlar reinforced bras for those girls on Capt. Dan's 28 that you could bid on a trip with! And I was surprised to see three pages of posts about that.

Cabin fever already?

JP Dalik · Post by **JP Dalik** » Dec 8th, '06, 10:37

I'm curious, is the argument ;
"The more water over top the more something in the water weighs"
or is it;
"The deeper you put an object under water the more resistance it will have because of the weight of water"
Would that mean when I drop my 12 ounce jig to 50 ft. it will weigh less then when I drop it to 200ft. Regardless of profile there is more weight on it at 200ft then at 50ft.
If you cannot compress water then the resistance should be the same. I believe we are talking resistance.
From practical experience it takes the same amount of effort to lift the anchor off the bottom in 200ft as it does in 50ft. Just a few more reps.

Personally you couldn't pay me to anything under the boat while fishing... just what we need another fish cutter below the running gear.

scot · Post by **scot** » Dec 8th, '06, 12:06

JP, Mike
I'm not sure anyone remebers what this is about. My theroy is that on occassion UV jumps in and stirs the pot. He then sits back and is entertained at our attempts to explain this insanity.

Just my opinion.

Eddy G · Post by **Eddy G** » Dec 8th, '06, 12:11

I found the hinged style I was thinking of. It would seem that these would work better, but at $199.00 for just the wings and another $199.00 for the outrigger, I think I'll just rock. They do look easy to make though. http://www.magmaproducts.com/Products/M ... lizer.html
Eddy G.

STraenkle · Post by **STraenkle** » Dec 8th, '06, 12:28

Well I think the best way, other than Timmy's suggestion, is just have a big fat crew member run to the high side out the boat every few seconds.

But wait, since the low side of the boat has less water under it, it stands to reason that there would be less pressure than the other side that now has more of that water lifting on it that the boat should just roll right over....

Scott

Chiles · Post by **Chiles** » Dec 8th, '06, 12:28

New theory... and yes, I have been thinking way too much again. It's not just drag as it is also lift.

Think about an airplane wing. Its not the air rushing under the wing that creates the lifting force, it is the vacuum on the top that keeps it rising. So lets look at this device as an upside down round wing.

As you pull on the rope, the water rushing around the device has drag on the top side, but more importantly, there is a negative force exerted on the back of the device. It's not so much real "negative pressure" as we all have stated that the density of water does not change, that is unless you pull so hard that you actually create cavitation. We are not talking that much force or speed.

So there are two forces at work. One is the drag created by the surface area. More surface area and drag will give you more water weight that will exert resistance. Any water that rushes around the object will also create a resistance on the back side of the object. The force of resistance would be the same at any given depth because you are never pulling up the full column of water, just the water effected by the drag or shape of the object. Objects at or near the surface would be still be subject to wave turbulence, just like disturbed air would effect a plane wing.

Ok aerospace engineers, I'm ready for the critique.

UV, I officialy appeal that the case be re-opened based on my new theory, and the fact that I also now have a new bottle to drink over the weekend.

Chiles

mike ohlstein · Post by **mike ohlstein** » Dec 8th, '06, 12:39

Paging Rube Goldberg.....Rube Goldberg.......

Call for you on the 31 site........

(still waiting for someone to say 'if this boat's rockin', don't bother knockin')

STraenkle · Post by **STraenkle** » Dec 8th, '06, 12:49

Chiles:

That is known as a pressure map, which is what defines the coefficent of lift and drag. All the positive and negitive pressures on a cross section.Cavitation is another whole animal... Lets not go there today.

Scott

Tony Meola · Post by **Tony Meola** » Dec 8th, '06, 21:12

Hey guys, I think we got ScotD upset. Maybe its time for us to get a judge to rule on this. Tony Meola

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Dec 9th, '06, 10:11

e to the u, du/dx
e to the x dx
cosine, secant, tangent, sine,
3.14159
integral, radical, slide rule, x
We think math is better than sex

GO TEAM!

In Memory of Vicroy · Post by **In Memory of Vicroy** » Dec 9th, '06, 15:23

Bruce, when I was in college a math prof tried to teach us coonasses that Pi R square, but we wouldn't buy that b.s. 'casue we all knew pie R round, cornbread R square..

BTW, put the new klixon on the ice machine compressor, and it kicked it right off with no chattering, but the bad news is it will only run for about 15 seconds before the thermal trips.....ice machine be's dead, time for a new one.....

UV

Harry Babb · Post by **Harry Babb** » Dec 10th, '06, 18:53

I think a little squirt of CX on bottom side of the Rocker stopper may reduce friction to make it fall faster on the down stroke.

Vic I need your cornbread recipe........here in this Alabama house mine always comes out triangular shape
Harry Babb

bertram31.com

Rocker Stoppers(?)

flopper stoppers

Stopper floppers?

Who is online