New Anchor Developments

[ggray]

This has been an interesting bit of trivia.

I would have thought DU to be more dense than anything else.

But after looking at densities of several materials, it looks like platinum is the obvious choice!

Originally Posted by Dockhead

We talked about this a couple of years ago.

I think tungsten is a much better choice than depleted uranium. The less pure common variety is cheaper than DU, is denser, and is much harder. You could make a sharp tip for an anchor out of it which ought to dramatically limprove penetration as well as balance.

I don't know why no one does it. You could really make a super anchor like this.

Another aspect of this is the density of the whole anchor, not only vs. water, but vs. the seabed.

A lead keel is much better than an iron one, and the difference is greater than just the simple difference in density, because it's not density by itself -- weight in air or in a vacuum -- but weight in water which creates righting moment.

But the same is true in the seabed, and here it's even more important, because the seabed is denser than water. So a 1.7x difference to lead is more like 2x (off the top of my head) in water, and the difference will be even greater in a denser medium like seabed.

These relationships look like this:

Attachment 167566

[StuM]

Originally Posted by ggray

This has been an interesting bit of trivia.

I would have thought DU to be more dense than anything else.

But after looking at densities of several materials, it looks like platinum is the obvious choice!

How about Osmium ?

[dfelsent]

I’m in favor of tungsten. It is inexpensive (free) if you collect enough lightbulb filaments and have a hydrogen furnace. Very hard especially if you chemically bond tungsten carbide to it. It won’t melt and lose its grip on the sea floor when all those supposedly “depleted” uranium anchors go critical and explode.
The only real issue I see is when clearing in explaining that you don’t need rabies shots for your pet Wolfram.

[IdoraKeeper]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

We talked about this a couple of years ago.

I think tungsten is a much better choice than depleted uranium. The less pure common variety is cheaper than DU, is denser, and is much harder. You could make a sharp tip for an anchor out of it which ought to dramatically limprove penetration as well as balance.

I don't know why no one does it. You could really make a super anchor like this.

Another aspect of this is the density of the whole anchor, not only vs. water, but vs. the seabed.

A lead keel is much better than an iron one, and the difference is greater than just the simple difference in density, because it's not density by itself -- weight in air or in a vacuum -- but weight in water which creates righting moment.

But the same is true in the seabed, and here it's even more important, because the seabed is denser than water. So a 1.7x difference to lead is more like 2x (off the top of my head) in water, and the difference will be even greater in a denser medium like seabed.

These relationships look like this:

Attachment 167566

Hmmm, don't think you get into greenland with a radioactive anchor..how you going to prove it's tungsten and not uranium?

[Panope]

One could start collecting used IRIDIUM spark plugs.

From wikipiedia-

"Iridium is a chemical element with symbol Ir and atomic number 77. A very hard, brittle, silvery-white transition metal of the platinum group, iridium is the second densest element (after osmium). It is also the most corrosion-resistant metal, even at temperatures as high as 2000 °C."

Steve

[Olddan1943]

A nerf anchor.
Light weight
Wont cause damage the hull

[noelex 77]

Thanks for all the comments, and those that went along with the joke.

It was an April 1st joke, but I guess not beyond the grounds of possibility. Currently anchors are primitive devices. It would be be great to see the more widespread adoption of modern materials. Aluminium and titanium have been used in some anchors for the parts that need to to be light and lead used where the parts need to heavy, but many even expensive anchors simply use steel.

So its no longer April the first, but it would be great to see some material innovation from anchor manufacturers.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Thanks for all the comments, and those that went along with the joke.

It was an April 1st joke, but I guess not beyond the grounds of possibility. Currently anchors are primitive devices. It would be be great to see the more widespread adoption of modern materials. Aluminium and titanium have been used in some anchors for the parts that need to to be light and lead used where the parts need to heavy, but many even expensive anchors simply use steel.

So its no longer April the first, but it would be great to see some material innovation from anchor manufacturers.

The idea was too reasonable, I think, to be an ideal April Fool's joke!

Actually I really do think that increasing the density of that part of the anchor which is intended to penetrate the seabed could dramatically improve anchor performance, and I wish someone would experiment with it. Ferro Tunsten (about 75% Tungsten) costs about $40/kg, so 10kg or 15kg of the stuff in a 40 or 50kg anchor wouldn't more than double the cost, I would think. If you think about the Spade design, for example -- just replacing the lead-filled point with one made of solid Ferro Tungsten might not be that expensive and could dramatically improve performance, also balance. You could make it sharper, too, although that might create risks for some people's gel coats.

Depleted uranium is actually not such a stupid idea either, although it is toxic and would need to be encapsulated. It's somewhat more expensive than W, however, and its mechanical properties are worse.

[Olddan1943]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Thanks for all the comments, and those that went along with the joke.

It was an April 1st joke, but I guess not beyond the grounds of possibility. Currently anchors are primitive devices. It would be be great to see the more widespread adoption of modern materials. Aluminium and titanium have been used in some anchors for the parts that need to to be light and lead used where the parts need to heavy, but many even expensive anchors simply use steel.

So its no longer April the first, but it would be great to see some material innovation from anchor manufacturers.

You mean we should stop poking fun at anchors? They live a boring life and need some laughter

[sailorboy1]

[QUOTE=noelex 77;2607856

There is of course the obvious concern of radiation, but .[/QUOTE]

Having spent 11 years as. navy nuclear trained operator, if you knew more about radiation you would understand how useless this “concern” is.

Even if it was just a joke

[Olddan1943]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Having spent 11 years as. navy nuclear trained operator, if you knew more about radiation you would understand how useless this “concern” is.

I did 7 years in the nuclear navy. Most on nuc subs, main propulsion. One accident at the S1W plant. Wanna see me glow?

[Attikos]

Noelex sez: "One anchor manufacturer suggested the use of depleted uranium would discourage other boat owners from anchoring too close, an obvious benefit."

I use the decapitated heads of people who have anchored too close. That seems to work pretty well.

[Colin A]

Apparently C and C built a boat with a DU keel
https://books.google.com/books?id=Gl...20keel&f=false

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Attikos

I use the decapitated heads of people who have anchored too close. That seems to work pretty well.

That would work for me, even better than the boat being French Canadain






Bet I’m going to get it now. But those that come down the aicw will understand

[Olddan1943]

Originally Posted by Colin A

Apparently C and C built a boat with a DU keel
https://books.google.com/books?id=Gl...20keel&f=false

URL not available
SIGH