Mantus rode

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

That's perfectly true. I'm not going to try and defend the CQR, that's just what I had at the time, and it was set as well as a CQR does set. But my engine is not as powerful as 50 knots of wind, so backing down will not tell me how the anchor will perform under those loads.

Lengthening scope was the most obvious thing I could think of ... so I just let out everything I had, and since I was already at the end of my chain, the extra was all nylon ... running the engine all night was going to be my next move, but I had the swinging room and the extra rode worked.

This would seem to support the conclusion that more scope is better. But I like to play the "what if" game ... and this thread has made me think ... "what if" that extra rode had been all chain instead of nylon, would I have seen the same difference? extra scope just reduces the angle of pull on the anchor, but extra nylon will soften the dynamic forces as the boat tugs on the anchor ... my hypothesis is that just by reducing the angle of pull, the CQR would have just kept on ploughing because that's what CQRs do best if you pull hard enough ... but by effectively using a better snubber the peak shock loads were kept below the failure point and the anchor could continue to work. In gusty or bouncy conditions is there a case that lengthening the snubber is a better option than simply lengthening scope?

Had it been a better anchor in poor holding, rather than a CQR in good holding (apart from the fact that the failure mode would have probably been a catastrophic release rather than a slow steady plough) would the situation have been different? Obviously, not anchoring in poor holding is key ... but occasionally I misjudge what I'm hooked into.

In my opinion, the angle of draw on the CQR at the original scope was in excess of what it could tolerate. Rather than dig deeper, it just pulled horizontal, which means the rode angle was at such that the point simply couldn't dig deeper.

The correct solution was to add more scope, so the rode angle (with catenary removed due to the force of the high wind) was low enough, that the point could dig down.

This is true of all anchor designs.

The angle between the stock and point may vary, but as soon as you lift that stock beyond that angle with the rode, the anchor just can't dig deeper; it isn't physically possible.

I think someone else has already posted the scope angle with catenary removed for various scope ratios so I won't bother to repeat, but once the wind force exceeds what is necessary to remove the catenary from the chain, and this angle is exceed, the anchor will most certainly not dig deeper. With a higher angle it could very likely pull out.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Yes, did you see the qualifying example right under that?

Anyone should realize there are practical limits; I mean if someone claims to want to anchor in 100 ft, well, that's a stretch, but 1000 ft, c'mon.

Notwithstanding if a customer advised they wanted to anchor in 100' regularly, I would have no problem recommending 500 ft of chain and another 500 ft of nylon if the vessel could support it.

Why not have it if you want it and your vessel can support it?

Reasons why not:

1. such a rode wouldn't fit in hardly any anchor locker made
2. the weight of 500 feet of chain plus anchor would render the vessel sufficiently bow heavy to adversely affect performance
3. it is completely pointless and has no application in the real world of anchoring

I suppose if your boat is a square river barge you could carry such a length. But then again, you are in a river.....

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

That's perfectly true. I'm not going to try and defend the CQR, that's just what I had at the time, and it was set as well as a CQR does set. But my engine is not as powerful as 50 knots of wind, so backing down will not tell me how the anchor will perform under those loads.

Lengthening scope was the most obvious thing I could think of ... so I just let out everything I had, and since I was already at the end of my chain, the extra was all nylon ... running the engine all night was going to be my next move, but I had the swinging room and the extra rode worked.

This would seem to support the conclusion that more scope is better. But I like to play the "what if" game ... and this thread has made me think ... "what if" that extra rode had been all chain instead of nylon, would I have seen the same difference? extra scope just reduces the angle of pull on the anchor, but extra nylon will soften the dynamic forces as the boat tugs on the anchor ... my hypothesis is that just by reducing the angle of pull, the CQR would have just kept on ploughing because that's what CQRs do best if you pull hard enough ... but by effectively using a better snubber the peak shock loads were kept below the failure point and the anchor could continue to work. In gusty or bouncy conditions is there a case that lengthening the snubber is a better option than simply lengthening scope?

Had it been a better anchor in poor holding, rather than a CQR in good holding (apart from the fact that the failure mode would have probably been a catastrophic release rather than a slow steady plough) would the situation have been different? Obviously, not anchoring in poor holding is key ... but occasionally I misjudge what I'm hooked into.

I have no clue if this is correct, but Rex from Anchorite (Excel, Sarca, etc.) told me that the poor performance of the CQR was frequently due to wear at the pivot pin. His testing showed better performance when they were new. Still nothing as good as a 3rd gen anchor, but...…

I apologize, but I see you made the same point I did on snub lines. I would definitely agree with you that a longer snubber is a better option in most cases than dropping more chain over the side.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

That's perfectly true. I'm not going to try and defend the CQR, that's just what I had at the time, and it was set as well as a CQR does set. But my engine is not as powerful as 50 knots of wind, so backing down will not tell me how the anchor will perform under those loads.

Lengthening scope was the most obvious thing I could think of ... so I just let out everything I had, and since I was already at the end of my chain, the extra was all nylon ... running the engine all night was going to be my next move, but I had the swinging room and the extra rode worked.

This would seem to support the conclusion that more scope is better. But I like to play the "what if" game ... and this thread has made me think ... "what if" that extra rode had been all chain instead of nylon, would I have seen the same difference? extra scope just reduces the angle of pull on the anchor, but extra nylon will soften the dynamic forces as the boat tugs on the anchor ... my hypothesis is that just by reducing the angle of pull, the CQR would have just kept on ploughing because that's what CQRs do best if you pull hard enough ... but by effectively using a better snubber the peak shock loads were kept below the failure point and the anchor could continue to work. In gusty or bouncy conditions is there a case that lengthening the snubber is a better option than simply lengthening scope?

Had it been a better anchor in poor holding, rather than a CQR in good holding (apart from the fact that the failure mode would have probably been a catastrophic release rather than a slow steady plough) would the situation have been different? Obviously, not anchoring in poor holding is key ... but occasionally I misjudge what I'm hooked into.

Or it could simply be that the CQR dragged along and hooked up on a stone in the seabed.

Uncontrolled testing like this are most valuable when the sample size is greater than 1.

This is the great benefit of both Panope's and Noelex's threads. They have a sample size that makes their observations statistically meaningful.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by outstanding post

I have to say that working through the numbers has changed my mind. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I now see that Dashew was absolutely right after all, and that catenary doesn’t affect holding much, and doesn’t affect it at all in storm conditions, even in deep water. Scope also has little effect, so long as you are using a good anchor which is more tolerant to angulation. You get 70% of the maximum holding force of a good anchor, on 4:1 with rope rode. Doing better than that is just playing around on the margins. What matters most of all, is having the biggest and best anchor you can manage. Going up two sizes in the anchor, will generally have more effect than going from 3:1 on rope, to an 8:1 scope on chain, see here:

This post should be reread as well as the original Dashew material. His BFA move ground tackle from the "lightweight anchor" physics and to a greater and greater degree into the "mooring" physics.

Simply put when your BFA anchor (because of it's outstanding design and substantial weight) mimics a 2000# or 3000# block of cement on the bottom the rules change.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Rod may be onto something with the recommendation he gives his clients that you need to carry 10:1 worth of rode for your maximum anchor depth. For me, I think last season that would involve around 1200 feet of 1/2" chain, in the which case, I don't really need an anchor at all. Just dump 2,800 ponds of chain over the side and go to sleep. With a half mile of chain on the seabed, who needs an expensive anchor at all?

Sounds like a good plan to me. Just cut the tubes off your dinghy and strap them to the bow to keep your head above water.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

.. running the engine all night was going to be my next move, but I had the swinging room and the extra rode worked.

Well hopefully I can be excused for a bit of thread drift. At this point a little relief might be in order but I think I'll start another thread to follow up further.

I have read about this technique but until I rode out hurricane Matthew on the boat in north Florida never had need or opportunity to try it. . At the height of the storm decided to try the motor into the wind trick to take some of the strain off the mooring. Instead it made the situation worse.

When I powered against the wind it would indeed take some of the strain off the pennant but then the wind would catch the bow, the boat would fall back and turn broadside to the wind and the resulting dramatic increase in forces on the boat and mooring.

Based on my experience I don't think I'll try this again.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Well hopefully I can be excused for a bit of thread drift. At this point a little relief might be in order but I think I'll start another thread to follow up further.

I have read about this technique but until I rode out hurricane Matthew on the boat in north Florida never had need or opportunity to try it. . At the height of the storm decided to try the motor into the wind trick to take some of the strain off the mooring. Instead it made the situation worse.

When I powered against the wind it would indeed take some of the strain off the pennant but then the wind would catch the bow, the boat would fall back and turn broadside to the wind and the resulting dramatic increase in forces on the boat and mooring.

Based on my experience I don't think I'll try this again.

That's actually not thread drift, in my opinion. This goes to the subject of managing the loads on the ground tackle in bad conditions.


One reason, it seems to me, that we all think that catenary works better than it actually does according to the numbers, is that the fundamental wind resistance loads are a fraction of the potential dynamic loads which result from yawing and wave action. If you can manage that, then the loads may be quite moderate even in storm conditions, and sorting that out should be Job 2 after getting the anchor perfectly set in good bottom.



Several of you mentioned snubbers, and that is right on point. With heavy chain in deep water, the point at which you start needing a snubber is surprisingly late, but in a storm eventually it will come in any case, and failure to snub the ground tackle well will enormously increase loads on it. Someone said something about -- that requires more than the usual toy snubber cruisers often use, and that is very true. I use 10 meters of 16mm nylon octoplait on my boat, and I have longer and thicker ones for storm duty.


But there is also preventing yawing, which is harder. I've never been through a hurricane at anchor, but I've found that in the kind of weather I have experienced (up to F9 I guess), a carefully tuned anchor spring line works on my boat. A riding sail might be a good idea on many boats. But one way or another, if you want to get through a storm at anchor without drama, you have to crack this one.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That's actually not thread drift, in my opinion. This goes to the subject of managing the loads on the ground tackle in bad conditions.


One reason, it seems to me, that we all think that catenary works better than it actually does according to the numbers, is that the fundamental wind resistance loads are a fraction of the potential dynamic loads which result from yawing and wave action. If you can manage that, then the loads may be quite moderate even in storm conditions, and sorting that out should be Job 2 after getting the anchor perfectly set in good bottom.



Several of you mentioned snubbers, and that is right on point. With heavy chain in deep water, the point at which you start needing a snubber is surprisingly late, but in a storm eventually it will come in any case, and failure to snub the ground tackle well will enormously increase loads on it. Someone said something about -- that requires more than the usual toy snubber cruisers often use, and that is very true. I use 10 meters of 16mm nylon octoplait on my boat, and I have longer and thicker ones for storm duty.


But there is also preventing yawing, which is harder. I've never been through a hurricane at anchor, but I've found that in the kind of weather I have experienced (up to F9 I guess), a carefully tuned anchor spring line works on my boat. A riding sail might be a good idea on many boats. But one way or another, if you want to get through a storm at anchor without drama, you have to crack this one.

Yawing is indeed a significant factor and can hugely increase the strain on the entire anchoring system and also add chafe and other problems.

Most of the boats I've owned sailed at anchor quite badly but my current boat will point quite steadily into the wind and sails very little IF I run my snubber over the bow roller. Since the roller is quite robust and mounted right at the stem and not out on the bow sprit, I think this is a safe practice on this boat.

I experimented with running the snubber line through the bow chocks which are of course farther off the centerline and the difference was dramatic.

Previous boats either due to the setup or size of the roller didn't allow running the snubber right off the point of the bow so don't know if that would have made a difference. Also the shape and windage of the boat's superstructure, keel, rig, etc all effect how and how much a boat will sail at anchor so not a simple question and certainly no universal, simple answer.

A riding sail could help a lot but in serious storm conditions that could be contraindicated due to the increase in windage.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I think the 6#/ton is a rule of thumb that probably makes some sense for smaller boats, but doesn't apply when the anchor gets heavy enough. Delfin stays put in most any kind of a blow with 4:1 scope and 176# for a 64 ton boat, and a 384# hook would be more than a bit of overkill, nevermind not fitting.

That 6lb/Tonne fits the recommendations made by Spade and Mantus btw, but Rocna suggest lighter weights for smaller yachts. Haven't checked large yachts.

Nick on S/V Jedi recently said in another thread he liked the idea that his BFA digs a hole when it hits the seabed. Whilst he may have been joking, we used to achieve a similar effect with a 6m dive boat and a small grapnel. Deployed by just throwing it over the side rather than lowering, the sharp flukes would dig in on impact. Tricky with a 176 lb anchor though.

Pete

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Yawing is indeed a significant factor and can hugely increase the strain on the entire anchoring system and also add chafe and other problems.

Most of the boats I've owned sailed at anchor quite badly but my current boat will point quite steadily into the wind and sails very little IF I run my snubber over the bow roller. Since the roller is quite robust and mounted right at the stem and not out on the bow sprit, I think this is a safe practice on this boat.

I experimented with running the snubber line through the bow chocks which are of course farther off the centerline and the difference was dramatic.

Previous boats either due to the setup or size of the roller didn't allow running the snubber right off the point of the bow so don't know if that would have made a difference. Also the shape and windage of the boat's superstructure, keel, rig, etc all effect how and how much a boat will sail at anchor so not a simple question and certainly no universal, simple answer.

A riding sail could help a lot but in serious storm conditions that could be contraindicated due to the increase in windage.

I do the same thing, and on my boat the bow chocks are not quite enough off center to stop yawing, so oddly running the snubber through them increases yawing.


When that's not enough, I use an anchor spring line which can be tuned from a sheet winch until the yawing stops.


I always thought a small riding sail would be the best thing in a really big storm, but I haven't tried it. I would have thought that the windage would be reasonable since it would be normally "feathered", but I don't know. Maybe some of those who've been through hurricanes have some experience.


In any case, getting the rode properly snubbed and preventing yawing is extremely important, certainly more important than scope. A yawing or snatching in strong winds will increase the force on the anchor, a lot more than increasing scope from say 3:1 to 10:1, will increase holding power.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

In any case, getting the rode properly snubbed and preventing yawing is extremely important, certainly more important than scope. A yawing or snatching in strong winds will increase the force on the anchor, a lot more than increasing scope from say 3:1 to 10:1, will increase holding power.

Fine tuning my snubber setup is where I need to do the most work. Are you using a chain hook or other device or tying the snubber to the rode?

Something a friend of mine did that I want to try is attaching the snubber to an eye mounted on the bow close to the waterline. It was a pretty easy installation for him to mount a very sturdy U-bolt with large nuts and a backing plate. Then he spliced a snubber to the eye and leaves the bitter end on deck to attach to the rode when he anchors. The lower attachment point allows a better scope ratio with less rode and at least on his boat, almost eliminated any sailing at anchor.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Fine tuning my snubber setup is where I need to do the most work. Are you using a chain hook or other device or tying the snubber to the rode?

Something a friend of mine did that I want to try is attaching the snubber to an eye mounted on the bow close to the waterline. It was a pretty easy installation for him to mount a very sturdy U-bolt with large nuts and a backing plate. Then he spliced a snubber to the eye and leaves the bitter end on deck to attach to the rode when he anchors. The lower attachment point allows a better scope ratio with less rode and at least on his boat, almost eliminated any sailing at anchor.

I use a snubber rarely, and when I do, I tie it on to the chain with a rolling hitch. I never much saw the point in chain hooks, which introduce a risk of falling off, but YMMV.



I think it makes very good sense to attach the snubber nearer the waterline, if it's reasonably possible to do it in a strong enough way, even if it doesn't help with tuning, but it very well might. The only drawback is that I think it is much more difficult to adjust the length of the snubber, if it is attached down there. A huge advantage of attaching the snubber there is the total elimination of chafe.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That's actually not thread drift, in my opinion. This goes to the subject of managing the loads on the ground tackle in bad conditions.

One reason, it seems to me, that we all think that catenary works better than it actually does according to the numbers, is that the fundamental wind resistance loads are a fraction of the potential dynamic loads which result from yawing and wave action.

Ummm, you seem to think that you have been authorized to represent the entire boating community with your statements.

I don't believe this is true, as I am positive I have never granted it.

Has anyone, really?

Is this just a trick to rally support for you opinion?

Let's be clear about this, you are posting your opinions.

They may be valid, or not so much.

They may apply to your circumstances and preferences, but perhaps not to others.

It seems to me, that this is your primary objection to any generalization that I, or anyone else attempts to make, about anything boating related.

You reserve the right to generalize when it suits you, and chastise (some may think even harass) others for doing exactly the same thing.

Your opinions may be consistent with the opinions of some, and inconsistent with others, but in the end, you are communicating on behalf of yourself and your own opinions, and I just don't believe you know what we all think.

That aside...

I believe I stated as early as post number 8 (my first post to this thread), the concept of catenary helping to improve anchor setting and holding, but that this can be reduced by higher loads on the rode.

So this shouldn't be a sudden revelation for you at post # 60 or whatever it was, that you apparently suddenly discovered, and seem to be taking credit for, when it was clearly indicated in post # 8.

So clearly "we" do not all think catenary works better than it does, because I have known how catenary actually works for over 20 years.

Interestingly one solution, to help preserve catenary in high load conditions is to increase scope. The geometry with gravity makes the catenary harder, and requiring more force, to remove.

Even more interestingly, if the force on the boat, which is transmitted to the rode increases to the point that the effect of the catenary to assist lowering the draw angle on the anchor stock is reduced, the only thing left to maintain adequate angle to prevent pulling the anchor out, is the scope.

You have several times in this thread, claimed that the difference between 7:1 scope and 10:1 scope is "negligible".

Well first, I understand this to mean that your opinion is that the difference between 3:1 scope and 7:1 scope is not negligible, or removing the double negative, is "considerable".

I believe in fact it is substantial, and your constant advocating of the adequacy of 3:1 scope for storm conditions, regardless of water depth is contrary to safety.

Of course the more weight of chain out, the better, and by the water being deeper, requires more chain out to reach the bottom, but this does not change the fact, that holding power still increases with more scope, and in my opinion, as is supported by the geometry, physics, my experience, and the opinion of most of the anchoring experts I trust, the difference is substantial.

Though I have not anchored in 100 ft of water personally, the effect easily extrapolates from the depths that I do have lots of experience with.

The short scope in deep water idea, is actually supported by very few. Of those, I believe it is merely a case, that they have accepted the increased danger of using shorter scope, for the benefit of carrying less rode.

So it isn't that 3:1 is as good, or even close to as good as 7:1, it's just a case, that this is all the rode available (or usable in the event of extenuating circumstances) and the inferiority of the solution, is just accepted.

Now regarding the claim that the difference between 7:1 and 10:1 is negligible.

I disagree.

While the effect of increasing scope may be a case of diminishing returns, the difference is not negligible, especially, if this difference makes the difference between the boat dragging and crashing on rocks, or staying put with the crew cozily inside awaiting the storm to pass.

I have been on both sides of this equation. When ample scope was used, no problem. When 3:1 scope was used, due to deep water and limited swing room, PROBLEM.

So catenary does work exactly as I think it does, and have for over 20 years.

Maybe you personally had misunderstandings about the benefit and effect of catenary, but I didn't; I've always known the benefit, since I first started sailing and studying anchoring techniques and expert recommendations.

Catenary helps to maintain the draw angle on the anchor stock.

With increased force against the boat (such as due from wind), this effect and its benefit can be reduced, and the one way to preserve it to the maximum extent possible, is to use as much scope as possible.

If the force against the vessel is so powerful (and it may not be) that this beneficial catenary is removed, then the only thing left to preserve the shallowest possible angle on the anchor stock (and I believe the closer this angle is to 0 the better) is longer scope.

Now again, in usual form, you may try to disagree with some element of this post, and put up some arguments based on your personal opinion, representing highly unusual circumstances being the minor exception to the major rule, but if you try to argue that this is not generally true, I hereby advise in advance, that I believe you are absolutely mistaken, and your insistence that your contrary thoughts, actually represent the common thought, are detrimental to the boating community.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Ummm, you seem to think that you have been authorized to represent the entire boating community with your statements.

I don't believe this is true, as I am positive I have never granted it.

Has anyone, really?

Is this just a trick to rally support for you opinion?

Let's be clear about this, you are posting your opinions.

They may be valid, or not so much.

They may apply to your circumstances and preferences, but perhaps not to others.

It seems to me, that this is your primary objection to any generalization that I, or anyone else attempts to make, about anything boating related.

You reserve the right to generalize when it suits you, and chastise (some may think even harass) others for doing exactly the same thing.

Your opinions may be consistent with the opinions of some, and inconsistent with others, but in the end, you are communicating on behalf of yourself and your own opinions, and I just don't believe you know what we all think.

That aside...

I believe I stated as early as post number 8 (my first post to this thread), the concept of catenary helping to improve anchor setting and holding, but that this can be reduced by higher loads on the rode.

So this shouldn't be a sudden revelation for you at post # 60 or whatever it was, that you apparently suddenly discovered, and seem to be taking credit for, when it was clearly indicated in post # 8.

So clearly "we" do not all think catenary works better than it does, because I have known how catenary actually works for over 20 years.

Interestingly one solution, to help preserve catenary in high load conditions is to increase scope. The geometry with gravity makes the catenary harder, and requiring more force, to remove.

Even more interestingly, if the force on the boat, which is transmitted to the rode increases to the point that the effect of the catenary to assist lowering the draw angle on the anchor stock is reduced, the only thing left to maintain adequate angle to prevent pulling the anchor out, is the scope.

You have several times in this thread, claimed that the difference between 7:1 scope and 10:1 scope is "negligible".

Well first, I understand this to mean that your opinion is that the difference between 3:1 scope and 7:1 scope is not negligible, or removing the double negative, is "considerable".

I believe in fact it is substantial, and your constant advocating of the adequacy of 3:1 scope for storm conditions, regardless of water depth is contrary to safety.

Of course the more weight of chain out, the better, and by the water being deeper, requires more chain out to reach the bottom, but this does not change the fact, that holding power still increases with more scope, and in my opinion, as is supported by the geometry, physics, my experience, and the opinion of most of the anchoring experts I trust, the difference is substantial.

Though I have not anchored in 100 ft of water personally, the effect easily extrapolates from the depths that I do have lots of experience with.

The short scope in deep water idea, is actually supported by very few. Of those, I believe it is merely a case, that they have accepted the increased danger of using shorter scope, for the benefit of carrying less rode.

So it isn't that 3:1 is as good, or even close to as good as 7:1, it's just a case, that this is all the rode available (or usable in the event of extenuating circumstances) and the inferiority of the solution, is just accepted.

Now regarding the claim that the difference between 7:1 and 10:1 is negligible.

I disagree.

While the effect of increasing scope may be a case of diminishing returns, the difference is not negligible, especially, if this difference makes the difference between the boat dragging and crashing on rocks, or staying put with the crew cozily inside awaiting the storm to pass.

I have been on both sides of this equation. When ample scope was used, no problem. When 3:1 scope was used, due to deep water and limited swing room, PROBLEM.

So catenary does work exactly as I think it does, and have for over 20 years.

Maybe you personally had misunderstandings about the benefit and effect of catenary, but I didn't; I've always known the benefit, since I first started sailing and studying anchoring techniques and expert recommendations.

Catenary helps to maintain the draw angle on the anchor stock.

With increased force against the boat (such as due from wind), this effect and its benefit can be reduced, and the one way to preserve it to the maximum extent possible, is to use as much scope as possible.

If the force against the vessel is so powerful (and it may not be) that this beneficial catenary is removed, then the only thing left to preserve the shallowest possible angle on the anchor stock (and I believe the closer this angle is to 0 the better) is longer scope.

Now again, in usual form, you may try to disagree with some element of this post, and put up some arguments based on your personal opinion, representing highly unusual circumstances being the minor exception to the major rule, but if you try to argue that this is not generally true, I hereby advise in advance, that I believe you are absolutely mistaken, and your insistence that your contrary thoughts, actually represent the common thought, are detrimental to the boating community.

This is actually very helpful, and I understand much better now the source of your opinions from the section highlighted in red above. You apparently have or had poor anchoring technique, or perhaps poor anchors, and rather than learn the skill and to compensate, you dump out the anchor locker to make up for your inexperience or inability to do what more experienced cruisers do routinely - set an anchor, all around the world, in all conditions, safely.