Please respond to my viewpoints from yesterday and Iíll be more than happy to respond to yours. Hereís part of the original post not answered (#34):
According to Donald Jordanís 1987 Coast Guard Report, a breaking wave can sweep the stern of your boat while using a Jordan Series Drogue. If a wave strikes a flat transom boat, the report emphasizes to have strong companionway doors and that everything else in your cockpit better be beefed up. Thereís also potential damage to a dinghy or windvane hanging from the transom. From what I read, sailors who own a canoe stern boat are potentially the only people that can effectively use the series drogue in a breaking wave circumstance.
No, actually, the JSD would benefit anyone using it in the case of breaking wave strike... however, as you point out the double-ended canoe stern boats would benefit in ways other designs might now. I'd point out that any boat that is hit by a breaking wave would do well to have a beefed up structure. A boat lying to a parachute-type sea anchor would be even more dangerously exposed, given the very nature of the parachute sea anchor, and would be well advised to have a reinforced cabintop.
I'd also point out that anyone carrying a dinghy on davits in this type of situation on the open ocean pretty much gets what they deserve... having a dinghy on transom davits in any kind of heavy weather is just stupid IMHO.
Most wind vanes wouldn't be too seriously affected, other than losing the vane, and if you had your airvane still mounted while dealing with the conditions that forced you to deploy a JSD, you deserve to have it broken off.
The airvane on most windvanes is easily and quickly removable.
Something else not mentioned is how Jordon failed to compare apples to apples. According to the Coast Guard Report, the series drogue was never tested against the parachute sea anchor. In truth, Jordon tested his series drogue against a cone-style drift sock that looks similar to an airport windsock. Jordanís second mistake was to add weight placement to his drogue, but not to the competing drift socks. According to the CG Report, Jordan recognized how weight placement was essential. So why didnít Jordon add weight to the drift socks? Itís been common practice since 1947 to use chain weight for parachute sea anchors? If it works for the parachute sea anchor and the series drogue, why not the drift socks?
Obviously, you didn't read the report very well... First, I'd point out that the report doesn't state whether weight was used with the other drogues or not... the only thing the report definitively states is that weight was used with the series drogue.
There is no evidence in the report one way or the other to determine whether weight was or was not used with the other drogues. This is an assumption you are making.
Second, I'd also point out that the bow-deployed parachute sea anchors were dismissed after scale model testing proved that they wouldn't successfully hold the bow to waves/wind if the rode had any slack in it, as would occur whenever the boat entered the trough between waves. This is clearly stated in 3.2.4, and is the reason why only stern-deployed drogues were tested.
, none of the parachute sea anchor manufacturers recommend deploying their devices from the stern of the boat. BTW, real world experience with parachute-type sea anchors has proven that they do have problems if any slack forms in the rode.
Section 3.3.2 says:
A variety of drogue designs were tested, including cone drogues with both rigid and flexible hoops, parachute drogues, and a novel design called a series drogue.
However, the test also notes that the large parachute style drogue and the series drogue do not display the tendency of the smaller parachute drogues or cone-based drogues to collapse when not under load.
Furthermore, itís not very cool to credit Donald Jordan as the ďbrainchildĒ (inventor) for other peoples hard work. In truth, the series drogue concept was originally patented by E.J. Pagan in 1889 and later by Sidelnikov in 1975. Unlike Jordan, their efforts to promote their series drogue failed.
A lot of people are credited with "inventing things" that were actually invented by other people... A good example is Bill Gates and Microsoft Windows... which was clearly a rip-off of the Mac operating system that had come along prior to Windows. The fact that Ctrl-x, c, v, z, and p are used for the cut, copy, paste, undo and print commands truly shows the level of the innovation that Bill had... since those were the Mac OS commands for those functions.
As another historic example, Guglielmo Marconi is credited as the father of modern radio, when it was actually "invented" by others, including Nikola Tesla. From a PBS article on radio, Nikola Tesla and Marconi.
Tesla filed his own basic radio patent applications in 1897. They were granted in 1900. Marconi's first patent application in America, filed on November 10, 1900, was turned down. Marconi's revised applications over the next three years were repeatedly rejected because of the priority of Tesla and other inventors.
Finally, lets be honest about the USCG involvement with the series drogue test. In truth, the USCG makes it very clear how they only provided "an economical platform" for Jordon to conduct his studies. They never endorsed the series drogue or stated that it was the best solution. Donald Jordon and his business associates make that claim.
Can you point out where I said the USCG endorsed the Jordan Series Drogue. All I've ever said is that Don Jordan developed in it conjunction or cooperation with the US Coast Guard. To quote my original post, this is what I said:
First, the Jordan Series drogue was developed and tested in conjunction with the US Coast Guard, and was specifically designed for helping small sailcraft survive in storm conditions, like those found during the 1979 Fastnet disaster that was Jordanís primary motivation for developing the series drogue. It has been proven to work very successfully and protect boats using it from damage during its deployment.
If you've read more into my statement than what is actually there, that's pretty much your own damn fault and problem.
The fact that you're attacking my posts and reading facts not in evidence into various things is pretty pathetic. Anytime, someone starts quoting things out of context, generally indicates that their basically on shaky ground. I'd really like to hear your response to the questions I posed in my previous post, since I've addressed your points.