Videos of Anchors Setting

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Panope

When you have to get a shovel to get the anchor out, it must be a good anchor.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Don C L

When you have to get a shovel to get the anchor out, it must be a good anchor.

Yup, hard to beat in its element. The only anchors I thought I might never get back were an FX-16 and a Guardian 5; you would not believe what it took to get that puny 2-pound anchor back after a hard test in firm, fine sand.

[thinwater]

I looked through the readings, compared them to my own in very similar sand, and came to two conclusions:

1. Generally they are very, very close. Panope's readings were slightly higher (20%), but he also pulled at a higher speed, which results in readings that are higher by ... 20% or so. So very, very similar. That is very encouraging, when investigators thousands of miles apart can reproduce data.
2. I wonder if testing in the surf zone is a mistake. Here is why. Most of the readings are very similar ... and then there are some that jump out as different (Mantus M1 vs. Mantus Dinghy. My Mantus Dinghy numbers agreed, my Mantus M1 numbers were considerably higher). I never work in the surf zone (I can anchor out 300-400 yards) because although generally consistent, there are patches of softer material where shells lie or small sea creatures live. There can be areas where the water is upwelling just enough to expand the sand. It is, by definition, a dynamic zone.
3. Just FYI, I have tested an Excel Alloy#1 in similar sane and gotten just about the same figure as Panope's Excel #1 steel. At high load, weight simply is not going to matter, only area and angles, which are equal.

The other option is to test in several locations, even just 100 feet to one side.


I would certainly want to repeat the M1 and Dinghy side-by-side. Something very, very odd is going on there, for the multiplier to be 38% vs. 158% (over 4x). Either one of those is totally wrong or there is something worth learning. This is a design that tends to be consistent.



Just brainstorming and sharing what I have learned.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by thinwater

I looked through the readings, compared them to my own in very similar sand, and came to two conclusions:

1. Generally they are very, very close. Panope's readings were slightly higher (20%), but he also pulled at a higher speed, which results in readings that are higher by ... 20% or so. So very, very similar. That is very encouraging, when investigators thousands of miles apart can reproduce data.
2. I wonder if testing in the surf zone is a mistake. Here is why. Most of the readings are very similar ... and then there are some that jump out as different (Mantus M1 vs. Mantus Dinghy. My Mantus Dinghy numbers agreed, my Mantus M1 numbers were considerably higher). I never work in the surf zone (I can anchor out 300-400 yards) because although generally consistent, there are patches of softer material where shells lie or small sea creatures live. There can be areas where the water is upwelling just enough to expand the sand. It is, by definition, a dynamic zone.
3. Just FYI, I have tested an Excel Alloy#1 in similar sane and gotten just about the same figure as Panope's Excel #1 steel. At high load, weight simply is not going to matter, only area and angles, which are equal.

The other option is to test in several locations, even just 100 feet to one side.


I would certainly want to repeat the M1 and Dinghy side-by-side. Something very, very odd is going on there, for the multiplier to be 38% vs. 158% (over 4x). Either one of those is totally wrong or there is something worth learning. This is a design that tends to be consistent.



Just brainstorming and sharing what I have learned.

I get the same (Mantus dinghy 4X better than 17lb, and 11lb. M1) result in my Sandy Mud seabed.

My hypothesis is that the Dinghy anchor is simply better at diving deep in some seabeds.

It has:

-Relatively thinner Rollbar (it is solid rod)
-Smoother surface (Stainless Steel)
-No bolt "graveyard" sticking up (at worst possible location).

Other than in the "soft mud" seabed, I have never found an M1 anchor (3 sizes in 4 seabeds) to bury completely. The Dinghy anchor buries itself without problem.

Steve

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Panope

I get the same (Mantus dinghy 4X better than 17lb, and 11lb. M1) result in my Sandy Mud seabed.

My hypothesis is that the Dinghy anchor is simply better at diving deep in some seabeds.

It has:

-Relatively thinner Rollbar (it is solid rod)
-Smoother surface (Stainless Steel)
-No bolt "graveyard" sticking up (at worst possible location).

Other than in the "soft mud" seabed, I have never found an M1 anchor (3 sizes in 4 seabeds) to bury completely. The Dinghy anchor buries itself without problem.

Steve

Isn't that interesting?


I have one stainless Dinghy Anchor that is fabricated (slick) and one that is cast (rougher). The roll bars are different sizes. I took the roll bars off once too, as an experiment. No significant differences.


Try taking the roll bar off one of the M1s and see if it matters. Or perhaps grind the bolts down smooth.


This is a huge difference, well worth understanding. Some dimensional difference? I never measured one carefully.


I tested a 12-pound Mantus in fine sand and got the nearly same multiplier I did for the 2.5-pound anchor; it held 800-1150 pounds (about 65-90x for both, many repetitions, varies somewhat with the season and water temperature). I did test both in soft mud, and in that test, the multipliers for all Mantus anchors were the same, from 2.5 to 45 pounds (about 10-12x).


Something is weird here.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Something is weird here.

My guess is, that it is all about the type of sand we have here in the PNW. I'll guess that your sand is more "liquid" (than mine) and "flows" around the anchor more readily.

Maybe a microscope would reveal a crystalline structure in my sand that is more likely to "interlock" the individual grains.

Have you ever found an M1 anchor to bury itself completely in sand?

Steve

[Panope]

Originally Posted by thinwater

.....Try taking the roll bar off one of the M1s and see if it matters. Or perhaps grind the bolts down smooth.

Testing the M1 (and Viking) without rollbars installed is on my long list of "future tests".

Maybe carriage bolts (pointing down) on the M1 will be workable.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by thinwater

I tested a 12-pound Mantus in fine sand and got the nearly same multiplier I did for the 2.5-pound anchor; it held 800-1150 pounds (about 65-90x for both, many repetitions, varies somewhat with the season and water temperature). I did test both in soft mud, and in that test, the multipliers for all Mantus anchors were the same, from 2.5 to 45 pounds (about 10-12x).

I reviewed my 12lb Mantus M1 test in my "Sandy Mud" seabed. The best holding that I measured was 380lb. The anchor did JUST become completely buried, followed immediately by a full release. This performance was only achieved on an initial set. Holding power after a reset was considerably worse. The anchor was clearly fouling/impacting with seabed.

By comparison, the 3.25 lb Mantus Dinghy anchor was hanging in there at 300lb. (creeping forward) before fully releasing. Both anchors were in the same seabed, same rode, same scope.

These cohesive seabeds in which I test have produced results that are both fascinating (lots of findings that are different from most other tests) and frustrating (hard to for people to believe).

Steve

[Sos]

Above is a picture of our 20kg Mantus M1 buried in hard mud/sand mix, after over 60 knots of wind.
Tried to dig anchor in before hand but could only dig down 4" or so but it did get the point started!
Did have to did it back out again mind

And yes it is a short scope due to rocks one side and a moored boat a few metres behind.

Below is a picture of our FX23 which we also used in the same storm, set at 90 degrees to the Mantus. We had a very quick wind shift which is why we set two anchors.


We had longer and stronger wind when it swung round to the Mantus.

[Panope]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJnYRwZsieI

[Sam Woodbridge]

That’s awesome! Thank you for taking the time to do it.

I do wish my Vulcan was included though.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Sam Woodbridge

That’s awesome! Thank you for taking the time to do it.

I do wish my Vulcan was included though.

Me too.

I sold the 55lb. Vulcan (too big) that I was borrowing, and used my portion of the proceeds to buy a new 21lb. Vulcan (for comparison to the "20lb" range that I also test). Many thanks to the man who made that donation.

I scan Craiglist every day looking for a 45lb Vulcan.

I cannot rationalize buying another new 45lber.

Steve

[Sam Woodbridge]

Originally Posted by Panope

Me too.

I sold the 55lb. Vulcan (too big) that I was borrowing, and used my portion of the proceeds to buy a new 21lb. Vulcan (for comparison to the "20lb" range that I also test). Many thanks to the man who made that donation.

I scan Craiglist every day looking for a 45lb Vulcan.

I cannot rationalize buying another new 45lber.

Steve

Thank you for the reply! You do awesome work in my opinion.

On anther opinion, if you want more interest in your videos. Go to the strip club and ask the sexy ladies if you could hire them for a day and include them on your anchor testing videos. And please keep in mind it needs to be on a hot summer day.

Sam

[Mike OReilly]

Steve, do you have any plans to move up the scale to larger anchors? Your tests have almost all been in the under 55/60# range (if I'm not mistaken). In our anchor discussions here, there's often the observation that size matters, and that some anchors behave differently as they get bigger.

I assume the answer to the above centres around money, but it would be fascinating to see your tests reproduced at the higher weight classes.

[Panope]

Mike,

I'd love to do a complete series on 100 pounders, but (as you said) money is lacking. Really, most financial advisors would say that my current position is inadequate to support the testing that I do currently.

Also, handling anchors larger than 50 pounds does great damage to my back vertebrae. I guess, if the revenue were to increase by 100 times, I could purchase a large working vessel equiped with hydraulic lifting gear, and just leave all the anchors onboard.

Make no mistake, the likelihood of my revenue increasing by 100 times, is as near to zero as can be imagined.

I reckon the suggestions to employ beautiful naked females are tongue in cheek (no pun intended). I want to make it clear that under no circumstances will I resort to that tactic - no matter how effective.

Steve