klem, thanks, and you are welcome.
If you think of a better way to do something or something that might advantageously be measured, maybe explore it here - or on another thread.
In terms of anchors there is much to explore, Noelex' idea of 'bigger is better' deserves some attention. I might not agree but given his intransigence (and being there and doing that) it would be arrogant to ignore him (and others). There is the whole subject of specification of anchors, there is the subject of anchors in weed - need to pull the thread back occassionally!
But testing needs to be realistic (it needs to relate as close to real life as possible), preferably the testing needs to be cheap
(and simple - do not try to do too much, its a yacht!).
To me there are enough questions (on anchors) to fill a number of MScs and PhDs but I'm not expecting much to happen, anchor
makers are not flush (so they are not going to sponsor) and if they will not sponsor
they are unlikely to do the work
and then publish it. Most publications are shy of work
on anchors - some have had their fingers burnt (and it does not pull in advertisers).