Martin X. Moleski, SJ

Members
  • Content Count

    275
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://moleski.net
  • Skype
    mx_moleski

Profile Information

  • Location
    Buffalo, NY
  • Interests
    Systematic theology (Roman Catholic), RC airplanes, poker, NASCAR, America's Cup, TIGHAR (search for Amelia Earhart), website development.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Martin X. Moleski, SJ

    Oracle Team USA

    Teams are allowed to train and interact together on a set number of days. It is all explained in detail in this other thread.
  2. Martin X. Moleski, SJ

    Oracle Team USA

    Ah ? so what would it be then ? if the explanations we got were true, plane would have moving wings, they don't. Planes also don't have foils. Different situation, different dynamics, different techniques for liftoff.
  3. Martin X. Moleski, SJ

    Oracle Team USA

    I submitted a question to "Ask Jack" on 5 Apr 2016, at 02:17 Question: In "beast mode," there seems to have been some kind of rhythmic pumping of the wing. You explained one week that this was not against the rules. What is the beneficial effect of the back-and-forth motion? What telltale, if any, is the trimmer watching to decide how much to pump? What is there about this technique that makes the boats go faster upwind? Jack replied to my question via email on 4/25/2016 4:31 PM: Hi Marty, OK, I have a few answers for you. On my way home after a good visit in Bermuda where I talked to several insiders, on all three of the teams here. - the wing trimmer is really working by “feel” and coordinating with the helmsman. He is not looking at any telltales. - the active wing trim helps the pitch (fore/aft) trim of the boat as well as the ride height. - no one I’ve talked to thinks the active wing trim constitutes pumping. - everyone I talked to thinks Bruce Knecht was just looking to sell more books with his controversial claims. I’ll write something up for my newsletter soon. I'm not sure that Jack did cover this in a later newsletter. What he says fits with your explanation about letting the boat climb before loading up the foils again.
  4. Martin X. Moleski, SJ

    Oracle Team USA

    Thanks, A Cat. I certainly didn't understand that the magic was in the easing of the sheet in order to unload the foils and allow the boat to gain altitude. I'm a "keyboard sailor," so this is only one of a zillion things I don't understand.
  5. Martin X. Moleski, SJ

    Oracle Team USA

    It was stale cigars up to yesterday morning--leftover from a friend's 50th anniversary celebration last year. I see this pattern: - the owner of the cup makes rules for a regatta - the winner becomes owner of the cup They loop through that sequence over and over again. You don't see the pattern. You're focused on a different pattern. You are picking up the story downstream from where I see things getting started. It's OK. People see things differently. That's life with people. Thanks for the free, friendly advice to read the DoG. BTDT years ago. Get refresher courses on this Forum all the time. Have followed the legal battles over it since "the first hostile Deed of Gift challenge" in 1988. "The San Diego Yacht Club, who wanted to continue running the Cup regatta in 12-metre yachts, initially rejected Fay's challenge out of hand. Fay then took the dispute to the New York State Supreme Court, which on 25 November 1987 declared the challenge valid and instructed the San Diego Yacht Club to meet the challenge on the water, brushing aside the twenty-one 12 Meter syndicates that had declared their intention of racing in a 1991 America's Cup regatta." I love certitude, when I'm the one feeling "sure." And yet, the amount of whining about the power of the defender to advantage themselves and disadvantage challengers suggests that the defender has an advantage over challengers in all disagreements about issues settled by "mutual consent." The sacred DoG does not prohibit arranging for a challenge minutes after a victory. Schuyler didn't see that coming, and didn't prohibit cooperation in planning the next challenge taking place before the end of a current challenge. You have just conceded my point. The one who wins the Cup largely gets to determine how the next regatta will be won. Wanna change that? Get up a syndicate and win the Cup under someone else's rules. Then you will be largely responsible for the new rules. "Such knowledge is beyond my comprehension."
  6. Martin X. Moleski, SJ

    Oracle Team USA

    OK. We're going to have to agree to disagree. By "America's Cup," I mean "the cup won by The America in a race whose rules were created by the British for the regatta." You have invested "America's Cup" with a different meaning. Sailboats compete. The winner gets the Cup. The winner largely gets to set the rules for the next competition, with very few constraints. Arguing about the rules is part of the game. Has been since the first race. No end in sight. Argue before the race. Argue during the race. Argue after the race. Rinse and repeat. I find it interesting. YMMV.
  7. Martin X. Moleski, SJ

    Oracle Team USA

    I don't think Schuyler made the rules for the FIRST regatta. The Brits thought it up. They bought the Cup. They awarded it to The America. That's how it became "The America's Cup." Agreed. And where his rules are vague, they have had to be amended. The much-loved 12M class came into existence by means of an amendment to his rules. Arguing about the rules--and adapting them to unforeseen circumstances--is part of The America's Cup competition. My guess is that arguing about the rules is part of any regatta, but I do not have much experience with that. I've been following the saga of the Cup since the Dennis Conner days. I haven't been so devoted to any other competition. YMMV.
  8. Martin X. Moleski, SJ

    Oracle Team USA

    From the very first race to the last, the rule is, "The one who holds the Cup makes the rules." The Britains made the rules for the first race. The America apparently found a loophole. It's been all rules and loopholes ever since. You have to win the Cup under someone else's rules before you get to make the rules for the next Cup. You don't like that? It's a big ocean. Go sail something somewhere else. Or so it seems to me.
  9. Martin X. Moleski, SJ

    Bermuda?

    Thanks for the very reasoned and reasonable overview of what is and is not subject to the scope of "mutual consent," Scassani. I think you probably mean "libel." On the whole, I am inclined to sympathize with the gag orders. Everybody who plays the game should see that they have a vested interested in courting the largest possible audience. If they win, they want the audience to look forward to their defense of the Cup. Wrangling about interpretations of the rules and about the wisdom of practical decisions is necessary for the conduct of the competition, but, to my way of thinking, it does not have to take place in public. A recent poster said that the next defender will definitely come from one of the six teams in the ACWS, and therefore that it makes sense to try now to start working on "mutual consent" for the next round. That was a "DOH!" moment for me. Right! What is good for the next winner of the Cup is good for everybody who wants to win the Cup. Don't tarnish the Auld Mug while trying to get yer mitts on it! I do enjoy thinking about the legalities that make the continuation of the Cup possible; what intrigues me makes others foam at the mouth. I have taken great joy in the series of court cases won by the Americans that led to AC 33 and therefore to AC 34. I don't mind the ACWS and have no objection to the defender being allowed to sail with the other challengers during part of the preliminary series. I don't think Schuyler was all-seeing, omnicompetent, or infallible in the changes he made to the Deed of Gift. The much-loved 12-meter class could not have contested the Cup if his Deed had not been amended to change the minimum waterline length from 20m to 13m. Alinghi could never have sailed for the cup if the language about "an arm of the sea" had not effectively been abolished. If using Valencia was OK for Alinghi, using Bermuda seems to me to be OK for GGYC. John Henry Newman said, "In a higher world it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often." People are learning what can be done with the Cup by trying different things with it. I'm enjoying the show, FWIW, if anyone cares. As they say in another kind of competition, "Shuffle up and deal!"
  10. Martin X. Moleski, SJ

    Oracle Team USA

    Yes, that seems to be the case. Yes. But I'm planning to lighten up Any Day Now.
  11. Martin X. Moleski, SJ

    Oracle Team USA

    OK. The "pumping" is shown from 23 to 29. Most of the time, the trimmer seems to be looking forward. I can't see any effect on the boat. And I can't tell whether the boat is heading upwind or downwind. Upwind is when they were using "Beast Mode," I believe. Well, I think I've left the question for "Ask Jack" on CupExperience. See what he thinks is going on ...
  12. Martin X. Moleski, SJ

    Oracle Team USA

    I agree with you. I don't see them "providing thrust directly" by the way in which the wing is being moved back-and-forth. What I can't see is what effect the pumping of the wing has on the boat. If what is shown in the video is the kind of pumping associated with "beast mode," then we're seeing it done on a different vessel from the big boat in the last cycle. If so, the technique must be valuable. What is its purpose? To what feedback is the trimmer responding? Why is this method of trimming so much more effective than less frequent adjustments?
  13. Martin X. Moleski, SJ

    Oracle Team USA

    From 0:23 to 0:30 I think you can see the movement of the trailing edge of the wing as described in "beast mode."
  14. Martin X. Moleski, SJ

    Oracle Team USA

    If change the sail angle of attack is what causes and maintains acceleration, then it is just "trimming" the sail for maximum power. Your source called it "pumping" and suggested two things about it: 1. It was an illegal use of human power to increase boat speed; and 2. It explained the upwind success that Oracle had. I don't think an additional 24 horsepower would add enough power to the system to win the races. There may have been lots of trim changes on the upwind runs, but isn't that what they call "sailing"?
  15. Martin X. Moleski, SJ

    Oracle Team USA

    It seems highly unlikely to me that the grinders could accelerate the boat very much, even if 100% of their power output could be applied directly to pumping. "How Much Energy Can a Human Produce?" The[/size] mechanical horsepower, also known as [/size]imperial horsepower, of exactly 550 foot-pounds per second is approximately equivalent to[/size] 745.7 watts. A healthy human can produce about [/size]1.2 hp briefly and sustain about 0.1 hp indefinitely; trained athletes can manage up to about 2.5 hp briefly and 0.3 hp for a period of several hours.[/size] Suppose each of the eight grinders could produce 3 hp for the upwind run. That's 24 hp total input. It's not "power at the wheels," because there have to be losses to friction in the system. By the time that human power gets through all of losses to the hydraulics and control system, it's not going to be what it was as it came from the muscles of the grinders. Some of the power had to go to adjusting the rake on the foils, too, I believe. That's another factor diminishing the power available to drive the boat forward by "pumping" the wing. The hull is said to have weighed 5,900 kg (13,000 lb). I'm no good at the math and the proper conversion of horsepower into work, but it seems to me that the remnants of 24 horsepower from the grinding stations is not going to add a measurable amount of acceleration to a 6.5 ton boat that can get up to 40 knots or so by wind power alone on a good day. Violating the laws of physics is not something this team "can do to win."