|
| |
| Welcome to myHanse.com the forum for Hanse Yachts owners throughout the world. | |
Has anyone tried moving the speedo to centerline |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 2345> |
| Author | |
Johan Hackman 
Admiral of the Fleet 
Joined: 24 August 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 4361 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 07 July 2017 at 22:38 |
|
Roger,
Thanks for the link to the article. It proves that you are right but then again, the author of the article is wrong.  It's all about naming things. What is True Wind, really? As I stated clearly before, it is in relation to whatever object the air is moving that should determine the name of such wind. To me, and the instrument makers, the name "True wind" is referring to a mass of air moving across a mass of water. If you want a "Truer Than True Wind" you might find it truer to tell the wind across something that is not moving, as water sometimes does, such as the parts of the Earth that stick out of the oceans. Let's call it the "ground". To call a mass of air moving an "apparent" wind is apt as it refers to whom it is apparent. To me, and so far the instrument makers, it is the wind that hits our faces when we are sailing. It consists of the air moving across the water together with the wind the journey across the water we sail generates, i.e. the speed wind that I referred to earlier. Now, the author of the article calls the wind that you perceive on the water without the wind generated from the boat speed "apparent wind". It is "apparent", and very real (or "True", if you like) to someone who is disconnected from land but why not call it "perceived wind"? (Did I just invent the abbrevation PWS and PWA- Perceived Wind Speed and Perceived Wind Angle?) What I am saying is that if you call one wind one thing, you should find another name for another wind. The confusion should not about how to name different things. I know I mentioned earlier that I have been discussing this earlier, and one of the places is Panbo.com. The editor of that blog (and whom I admire a lot) is Ben Ellison. After having very long discussion and a few almost heated arguments in the forum at his blog he wrote a blog post where he suggested True Wind should be renamed or redefined. I used the better part of this afternoon to find this blog post and I chuckled when I saw when the first commenter of the article you linked to was... Johan |
|
 |
|
|
Johan Hackman
Admiral of the Fleet
Joined: 24 August 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 4361 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 July 2017 at 23:06 |
|
So if you follow the link you posted and check the link Ben provides,
http://www.panbo.com/archives/2013/03/the_equinox_celestial_mechanics_pesky_true_wind.html , you will find my name in the article. I think this was the blog post I was looking for this afternoon. Johan Edited by Johan Hackman - 08 July 2017 at 10:36 |
|
|
|
|
Johan Hackman
Admiral of the Fleet
Joined: 24 August 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 4361 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 July 2017 at 23:20 |
|
I find it amusing that if I look at the link you provide and follow the first commenter's suggestion to a link the first commenter is - me!
Johan |
|
|
|
|
Johan Hackman
Admiral of the Fleet
Joined: 24 August 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 4361 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 July 2017 at 23:39 |
|
I must say I am having a ball reading my own comments in that thread! I should go to bed but I pour myself a glass of red wine and have a good time.
I turns out I have already invented another type of wind - the "Hobby Wind"!!! This was already in 2013!! Johan Edited by Johan Hackman - 07 July 2017 at 23:44 |
|
|
|
|
High Time
Vice Admiral 
Joined: 04 September 2012 Location: Portsmouth UK Status: Offline Points: 819 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 July 2017 at 09:44 |
|
Johan
It's becoming clear to me also that the problem is with names not principles or maths. True Wind, I think everyone agrees, is defined as wind speed and direction relative to the ground. The confusion has arisen amongst sailors because instrument makers have chosen to use the term True Wind to mean wind speed/direction relative to the water. Elsewhere it has been suggested that this should be termed Water Wind to avoid the confusion. Instrument makers originally provided Water Wind info because it could be easily derived in the wind instrument if STW data was added. With the advent of networked GPS SOG/COG data on most modern boats it is now possible to derive True Wind (relative the ground) and I suspect in a few years this will become generally available on mainstream wind instruments and plotters. As a social, rather than a racing, sailor, I believe True Wind is (marginally) more useful than Water Wind. PS The link you provide to Panbo doesn't work for me. Does it still work for you?
|
|
|
Roger
High Time (415 #038) |
|
|
|
|
Johan Hackman
Admiral of the Fleet
Joined: 24 August 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 4361 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 July 2017 at 10:45 |
|
Roger,
I reposted the link so it works now. Like I wrote above, I had a ball yesterday night re-reading all the discussions about True Wind I have been involved in. It's been a few years now and I kind of miss the late nights when I was trying to find ways get my points across. I also remember how difficult it was and I see that I in this thread start to walk in my own foot steps. Therefore I have decided to retire from the True Wind discussion. Johan |
|
|
|
|
High Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 04 September 2012 Location: Portsmouth UK Status: Offline Points: 819 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 July 2017 at 15:47 |
|
Hi Johan
Thanks for re-posting the link. I follow Panbo as I am particularly interested in electronics and navigation etc. but missed the referenced thread the first time around. It's interesting to see the discussion has been doing the rounds for several years now (and to note that Ben's position on True Wind is similar to mine  ).I think we are actually in agreement that it is really only a terminology issue, so I, too, will bow out gracefully from this thread. Fair winds.
|
|
|
Roger
High Time (415 #038) |
|
|
|
|
StavrosNZ
Rear Admiral 
Joined: 24 October 2014 Location: New Zealand Status: Offline Points: 581 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 July 2017 at 21:47 |
|
All very fascinating and technically correct but again i have upgraded my instruments from Simrad to B&G Triton. For cruising (we have low tidal flows and falls) i use SOG, no paddle wheel to remove and clean, no variation on either tack and the impact on TWS is minimal based on my observations. For cruising its low maintenance trouble free solution.
|
|
|
Stephen
2010 H400 #691, Auckland, New Zealand |
|
|
|
|
iemand
Admiral 
Joined: 13 February 2004 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 1099 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 July 2017 at 07:09 |
|
How is your system calculation TWS without Speed thru the water? It must be the same as AWS?!
|
|
|
Hanse 312 MJ 2004 - Hanse 370e MJ 2007
|
|
|
|
|
High Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 04 September 2012 Location: Portsmouth UK Status: Offline Points: 819 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 July 2017 at 10:17 |
I would do the same but the speedo (paddle wheel) also includes the depth sensor which I can't do without! I think I would also lose TWS/TWD as this needs the STW input (IS20 and NSS8 system). Does the Triton wind system give TWS with reference to SOG (maybe as an option)?
|
|
|
Roger
High Time (415 #038) |
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 2345> |
| Tweet |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|
Links : www.hanseyachts.co.uk www.hanseyachts.com www.fjordboats.co.uk www.dehler.co.uk www.varianta.co.uk |
Topic Options
StavrosNZ wrote: