>Question to the experts - would this boat be actually seaworthy in >anything but a calm sea?
>The vertical bow and vertical flat windows don't really look like >something you'd see on an oceangoing vessel - and the huge rectangular >windows below the main deck remind me more of river cruise vessels you >see on the Rhine...
How long will those iMac's on the bridge last before breaking their
stands in a heavy sea?
I notice it isn't being sailed from Europe to the US, it's being
shipped over...
Like just about every device Jobs was involved in after Wozniac parted
company with him, it's an expensive triumph of form over function.
> Question to the experts - would this boat be actually seaworthy in
> anything but a calm sea?
> The vertical bow and vertical flat windows don't really look like
> something you'd see on an oceangoing vessel - and the huge rectangular
> windows below the main deck remind me more of river cruise vessels you
> see on the Rhine...
Wow, that is one strange looking beastie of a boat, isn't it. ? I get the impression feeling this one was intended to be moored up much of the time, as a floating luxury hotel/restaurant, with an occasional foray into calm open ocean waters.
> Question to the experts - would this boat be actually seaworthy in > anything but a calm sea?
> The vertical bow and vertical flat windows don't really look like > something you'd see on an oceangoing vessel - and the huge rectangular > windows below the main deck remind me more of river cruise vessels you > see on the Rhine...
> > Question to the experts - would this boat be actually seaworthy in
> > anything but a calm sea?
> > The vertical bow and vertical flat windows don't really look like
> > something you'd see on an oceangoing vessel - and the huge rectangular
> > windows below the main deck remind me more of river cruise vessels you
> > see on the Rhine...
> Wow, that is one strange looking beastie of a boat, isn't it. ? I get the
> impression feeling this one was intended to be moored up much of the time,
> as a floating luxury hotel/restaurant, with an occasional foray into calm
> open ocean waters.
Yes.
And we have that whole bay to sail on. Lots of nice destinations
nearby with Monterey, Santa Barbara, Morro Bay and whatnot. The west
coast (coastal waters) doesn't see much in the way of heavy seas very
often, so most of the year should be safe from Vancouver to Cabo.
Look for this boat when watching America's Cup racing, wouldn't be
suprised to see it out there to watch the races from.
> Question to the experts - would this boat be actually seaworthy in > anything but a calm sea?
> The vertical bow and vertical flat windows don't really look like > something you'd see on an oceangoing vessel - and the huge rectangular > windows below the main deck remind me more of river cruise vessels you > see on the Rhine...
"a Jacuzzi on the top of the craft and two floors of superstructure above the deck area."
IMHO:
seems rather top heavy , with the weight of all the water in the Jacuzzi that high would make it rather unstable in anything other than a calm sea.
large "sail area" as well.. would be a real pain in any cross wind..
probably best as a party boat in the marina . my 2¢
Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I notice it isn't being sailed from Europe to the US, > it's being
> shipped over...
>With an all-aluminium hull, would you trust it to make it >across the
Atlantic in winter?
>Also, in typical jobsian fashion, it's small - much smaller >than all
those other billionaire mega-yachts.
Apparently its name is Venus, clearly it was designed for North Atlantic service
>> Question to the experts - would this boat be actually seaworthy in
>> anything but a calm sea?
>> The vertical bow and vertical flat windows don't really look like
>> something you'd see on an oceangoing vessel - and the huge rectangular
>> windows below the main deck remind me more of river cruise vessels you
>> see on the Rhine...
> Wow, that is one strange looking beastie of a boat, isn't it. ? I get the
> impression feeling this one was intended to be moored up much of the time,
> as a floating luxury hotel/restaurant, with an occasional foray into calm
> open ocean waters.
> cheers....Jeff
I wonder how long it will be before this turns up in a James Bond movie?
>> Question to the experts - would this boat be actually seaworthy in
>> anything but a calm sea?
>> The vertical bow and vertical flat windows don't really look like
>> something you'd see on an oceangoing vessel - and the huge
>> rectangular windows below the main deck remind me more of river
>> cruise vessels you see on the Rhine...
tutall wrote:
> On Oct 30, 12:22 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>> Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>>> A Dutch blogger claims to have taken pictures of the yacht built for
>>> Steve Jobs (which was apparently finished a tad bit late...):
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/steve_jobs_yacht_venus/
>>> Question to the experts - would this boat be actually seaworthy in
>>> anything but a calm sea?
>>> The vertical bow and vertical flat windows don't really look like
>>> something you'd see on an oceangoing vessel - and the huge
>>> rectangular windows below the main deck remind me more of river
>>> cruise vessels you see on the Rhine...
>> Wow, that is one strange looking beastie of a boat, isn't it. ? I
>> get the impression feeling this one was intended to be moored up
>> much of the time, as a floating luxury hotel/restaurant, with an
>> occasional foray into calm open ocean waters.
> Yes.
> And we have that whole bay to sail on. Lots of nice destinations
> nearby with Monterey, Santa Barbara, Morro Bay and whatnot. The west
> coast (coastal waters) doesn't see much in the way of heavy seas very
> often, so most of the year should be safe from Vancouver to Cabo.
> Look for this boat when watching America's Cup racing, wouldn't be
> suprised to see it out there to watch the races from.
:) LoL, good call @tutall, I'm sure it would make a spectacular camera platforn too.
All you need is LOT$ of CA$H and all this can be yours too, for a day of exquisite enjoyment.
Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 30/10/2012 19:23, Jeffrey Hamilton wrote:
>> Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>>> A Dutch blogger claims to have taken pictures of the yacht built for
>>> Steve Jobs (which was apparently finished a tad bit late...):
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/steve_jobs_yacht_venus/
>>> Question to the experts - would this boat be actually seaworthy in
>>> anything but a calm sea?
>>> The vertical bow and vertical flat windows don't really look like
>>> something you'd see on an oceangoing vessel - and the huge
>>> rectangular windows below the main deck remind me more of river
>>> cruise vessels you see on the Rhine...
>> Wow, that is one strange looking beastie of a boat, isn't it. ? I
>> get the impression feeling this one was intended to be moored up
>> much of the time, as a floating luxury hotel/restaurant, with an
>> occasional foray into calm open ocean waters.
>> cheers....Jeff
> I wonder how long it will be before this turns up in a James Bond
> movie?
> Andrew Swallow
LoL, good point Andrew, I believe you pegged it for sure, which would also guarantee it's *notoriety*, of course. "Shaken' not stirred", is the order of the day, all ahead slow....
>> I notice it isn't being sailed from Europe to the US, it's being
>> shipped over...
Which is pretty standard actually, saves paying a crew until she
arrives where she'll be in service. The heavy lift companies have
dedicated yacht haulers, and use their bigger vessels when not
required elsewhere.
>With an all-aluminium hull, would you trust it to make it across the >Atlantic in winter?
On Oct 30, 4:09 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:16:28 -0700, Dan <dnada...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 10/30/2012 12:06 PM, Bill wrote:
> >> Like just about every device Jobs was involved in after Wozniac parted
> >> company with him, it's an expensive triumph of form over function.
> >Name one...
> iMac, iPod, iPad, iPhone, and on and on and on...
> Expensive, stylish and none of them do anything their much cheaper
> rivals don't do.
Am no fanboi, haver never owned or used an Apple, mostly as the
availablility of software had been comparatively poor, and the
workplace had, note "had" usually been MS platform dependent, office
suite and whatnot. Also more utilities, games and flexibility.
But, my wife has a tablet , son a 6 year old laptop, the in-laws have
a decade old Mac and have observed them, and others.
Hard not to living in the middle of it all here. Hell, my father was
friends with Steve Wozniak's and knew Steve (by sight) as a teen. I
think we still have a gadget he made for his father's friends. (a
random number generator, used for table gaming)
However, your price/performance critique is now dated at least a
decade ago. There is still some premium, much less these days, and the
trade off is ease of use, which for non users is easy to dismiss.
Computer illiterate grandmothers can use Apple with hardly any
training.
Setting up a new PC is still not that easy.
Some of their other successes are well deserved and I usually sense
jealousy in such scorn. What you don't seem to understand is that
Apple makes technology easy, so easy it's a bit magical to people.
Stupid, but true. Even tech people can fall in love with some of their
products, so it's not just the ignorati.
My next PC will be Intel/Windows as that's what I know, but looking
down at Apple and it's users seems unproductive.
> >Question to the experts - would this boat be actually seaworthy in > >anything but a calm sea?
> >The vertical bow and vertical flat windows don't really look like > >something you'd see on an oceangoing vessel - and the huge rectangular > >windows below the main deck remind me more of river cruise vessels you > >see on the Rhine...
> How long will those iMac's on the bridge last before breaking their
> stands in a heavy sea?
> I notice it isn't being sailed from Europe to the US, it's being
> shipped over...
> Like just about every device Jobs was involved in after Wozniac parted
> company with him, it's an expensive triumph of form over function.
Well----not if the function is to make money for Apple!
> On Oct 30, 12:22 pm, "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bberesf...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> > Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> > > A Dutch blogger claims to have taken pictures of the yacht built for
> > > Steve Jobs (which was apparently finished a tad bit late...):
> > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/steve_jobs_yacht_venus/
> > > Question to the experts - would this boat be actually seaworthy in
> > > anything but a calm sea?
> > > The vertical bow and vertical flat windows don't really look like
> > > something you'd see on an oceangoing vessel - and the huge rectangular
> > > windows below the main deck remind me more of river cruise vessels you
> > > see on the Rhine...
> > Wow, that is one strange looking beastie of a boat, isn't it. ? I get the
> > impression feeling this one was intended to be moored up much of the time,
> > as a floating luxury hotel/restaurant, with an occasional foray into calm
> > open ocean waters.
> Yes.
> And we have that whole bay to sail on. Lots of nice destinations
> nearby with Monterey, Santa Barbara, Morro Bay and whatnot. The west
> coast (coastal waters) doesn't see much in the way of heavy seas very
> often, so most of the year should be safe from Vancouver to Cabo.
LOL! "The west coast (coastal waters) doesn't see much in the way
of heavy seas". Why do you think the US Coast Guard does
motor lifeboat training off the mouth of the Columbia River
between Oregon and Washington?
The West Coast of the US often has wind waves and swells that
match or exceed anything off the US East or Gulf coasts. After all,
we have an exposed coastline with thousands of miles of fetch to
build those swells. I've spent weeks at sea on research vessels
off the US West coast. It can be really rough and there are only
a few harbors not protected by very dangerous bars--the underwater kind
at harbor entrances---well, except for San Franciso perhaps ;-)
A few weeks ago I spent a week up in Alaska helping people
from the Naval Research Laboratory set up instruments off
Southeast Alaska. They are interested in measuring energy
transfer in breaking waves. They didn't pick the Gulf or
Atlantic coasts---which are much closer to their base
in Mississippi. They picked the US Pacific coast. Do you think
that might be a clue?
If you still doubt that the West Coast has heavy seas,
go see the movie "Chasing Mavericks"
> Look for this boat when watching America's Cup racing, wouldn't be
> suprised to see it out there to watch the races from.
If I had a boat with those windows and lived in the Bay area,
I'd be out there too.
> > Question to the experts - would this boat be actually seaworthy in > > anything but a calm sea?
> > The vertical bow and vertical flat windows don't really look like > > something you'd see on an oceangoing vessel - and the huge rectangular > > windows below the main deck remind me more of river cruise vessels you > > see on the Rhine...
> "a Jacuzzi on the top of the craft and two floors of superstructure above > the deck area."
> IMHO:
> seems rather top heavy , with the weight of all the water in the Jacuzzi > that high would make it rather unstable in anything other than a calm > sea.
> large "sail area" as well.. would be a real pain in any cross wind..
> probably best as a party boat in the marina . my 2¢
A modest-sized hot tub holds only about 300 gallons or a bit
over a ton of water. That's not a lot of weight, especially
if the rest of the superstructure is light weight. In any
kind of bad weather, you just drain the thing and refill
it later.
On a larger scale, lots of cruise ships have pools on the 4th or
5th deck. They get a bit sloppy and are usually closed down
when the ships are in the open seas on the Alaska cruises
when the swell kicks up.
> And we have that whole bay to sail on. Lots of nice destinations
> nearby with Monterey, Santa Barbara, Morro Bay and whatnot. The west
> coast (coastal waters) doesn't see much in the way of heavy seas very
> often, so most of the year should be safe from Vancouver to Cabo.
well, it's the same coastline where happen the most embarassing USN shipwreck (mass-wreck of mass-production DDs...)
and the warm and beautiful waters of the Med are actually more dangerous for leasure ships unfit for sea, even if the skipper known his Art (I refer to the brief but sudden & violent summer storms)....
On Oct 30, 11:06 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
> LOL! "The west coast (coastal waters) doesn't see much in the way
> of heavy seas". Why do you think the US Coast Guard does
> motor lifeboat training off the mouth of the Columbia River
> between Oregon and Washington?
Because of the tides and currents?
> The West Coast of the US often has wind waves and swells that
> match or exceed anything off the US East or Gulf coasts. After all,
Wind waves and swells. Not storms, hurricanes or typhoons though.
Storm season is relatively short.
We see plenty of "small boat advisories" sure. And the Venus, due to
her design would not do as well as one of her size should. But, those
shouldn't be dangerous for her either.
> A few weeks ago I spent a week up in Alaska helping people
I specifically excluded Alaska.
> If you still doubt that the West Coast has heavy seas,
> go see the movie "Chasing Mavericks"
That's about a big wave surfing contest you know. Last one was live
streamed btw.
A localized wave due to an underwater formation speaks about sea
state. Really?
I've been out in that water. And the Mavericks big wave contest can be
fun. The local pier is great for certain seasonal fresh fish and crab.
Good little restaraunt shack too.
Maybe I need to be more specific: dangerously heavy, as seen off the
east coast this week.
On Oct 31, 6:02 am, "dott.Piergiorgio" <chiedet...@ask.me> wrote:
> Il 30/10/2012 20:54, tutall ha scritto:
> well, it's the same coastline where happen the most embarassing USN
> shipwreck (mass-wreck of mass-production DDs...)
Believe fog had something to do with that. That was good formation
discipline, give them credit for that. <bg>
> and the warm and beautiful waters of the Med are actually more dangerous
> for leasure ships unfit for sea, even if the skipper known his Art (I
> refer to the brief but sudden & violent summer storms)....
> On Oct 31, 6:02 am, "dott.Piergiorgio" <chiedet...@ask.me> wrote:
>> Il 30/10/2012 20:54, tutall ha scritto:
>> well, it's the same coastline where happen the most embarassing USN
>> shipwreck (mass-wreck of mass-production DDs...)
> Believe fog had something to do with that. That was good formation
> discipline, give them credit for that. <bg>
This is why the episode was embarassing then and still today...
>> and the warm and beautiful waters of the Med are actually more dangerous
>> for leasure ships unfit for sea, even if the skipper known his Art (I
>> refer to the brief but sudden & violent summer storms)....
> Thankfully we don't see those out this way.
well, I see (and get drenched...) the tropea very often, for very obvious reasons..
y' ought to see, the clean and sunny skies in a quarter of hour became full of storm cloud and rain, wind and thunder rules for another quarter of hour, then in another quarter of hour the skies return clean and sunny as nothing happened... go figure what happens on the Sea.
tutall <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>However, your price/performance critique is now dated at least a
>decade ago. There is still some premium, much less these days,
Not really. I just bought a new Windows box two weeks ago, and even
without the sale (Costco was dumping Windows 7 prebuilts in
anticipation of the release of Windows 8), it cost just a hair under
half of what an equivalently performing Mac cost. (I know this for
certain, because I was considering jumping to a Mac and evaluated them
thoroughly.)
>the trade off is ease of use, which for non users is easy to dismiss.
>Computer illiterate grandmothers can use Apple with hardly any
>training.
People without PC experience today are like people in 1978 with a
black and white TV - largely either financially challenged, or
charming anachronisms. Either way, they're fairly rare. Consumer
PC's have been around for nearly thirty years, and the number of
people who are elder *and* have never been exposed to them has
radically decreased and will continue to do so.
>Setting up a new PC is still not that easy.
As compared to what? Have you actually bought a pre-built machine in
the last decade? Unbox, attach cables, plug in, power up, Robert is
your parent's sibling. Fine tuning the machine for your idiosyncratic
preferences remains problematic, but for 90% of the users that's not
even necessary - they just want a machine that more-or-less works.
tutall <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 31, 6:02 am, "dott.Piergiorgio" <chiedet...@ask.me> wrote:
>> Il 30/10/2012 20:54, tutall ha scritto:
>> and the warm and beautiful waters of the Med are actually more dangerous
>> for leasure ships unfit for sea, even if the skipper known his Art (I
>> refer to the brief but sudden & violent summer storms)....
>Thankfully we don't see those out this way.
But the whole of the West coast of CONUS isn't California.
In article <2e60a49f-5da4-4056-998c-7068ebf5b3d8
@b9g2000pba.googlegroups.com>, tut...@hotmail.com says...
> On Oct 30, 11:06 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > LOL! "The west coast (coastal waters) doesn't see much in the way
> > of heavy seas". Why do you think the US Coast Guard does
> > motor lifeboat training off the mouth of the Columbia River
> > between Oregon and Washington?
> Because of the tides and currents?
Nope. Because of the high surf in the region of the Columbia
River bar. A search for "coast guard motor lifeboat school" will
find you some interesting videos of the wave action off the
Washington coast. You get lots of nice breaking waves when
an outgoing tide meets a 15-foot swell.
> > The West Coast of the US often has wind waves and swells that
> > match or exceed anything off the US East or Gulf coasts. After all,
> Wind waves and swells. Not storms, hurricanes or typhoons though.
> Storm season is relatively short.
The maximum wave heights off the west coast occur between October
and April. (See Allan and Komar paper cited later). That's about the
same duration as the storm season off the East Coast.
> We see plenty of "small boat advisories" sure. And the Venus, due to
> her design would not do as well as one of her size should. But, those
> shouldn't be dangerous for her either.
Try a google search for "farallon islands shipwrecks". The area
just outside San Francisco Bay is pretty dangerous. In my younger
and more foolish days (26 and just out of the Navy), I singlehanded
a 24-foot sailboat from Oakland out the Golden Gate and up
to Bodega Bay. The combination of fog, seas, rocks and other hazards made that a very interesting trip. On the way
back, I got caught in the ebb tide----it took me about 7
hours to make the last 12NM to Angel Island.
> > A few weeks ago I spent a week up in Alaska helping people
> I specifically excluded Alaska.
I must have missed that. All I see is "the west coast (coastal
waters). Alaska up to about Seward is a West-facing coast
and is part of the US. However, a study, cited later,
shows that the largest waves occur off the Washington
Coast. Alaska, Oregon and California generally have
smaller wave heights.
> > If you still doubt that the West Coast has heavy seas,
> > go see the movie "Chasing Mavericks"
> That's about a big wave surfing contest you know. Last one was live
> streamed btw.
> A localized wave due to an underwater formation speaks about sea
> state. Really?
No swell, no big surf, no matter what the underwater configuration.
Incidentally, when discussing waves, particularly off the West
coast, it's helpful to distinguish between localized wind wave
height and the swell. The swell can have heights around
30 feet and a period in the range of 11 to 14 seconds.
Wind waves are generally a fraction of that height and have periods around 3 to 5 seconds.
> I've been out in that water. And the Mavericks big wave contest can be
> fun. The local pier is great for certain seasonal fresh fish and crab.
> Good little restaraunt shack too.
> Maybe I need to be more specific: dangerously heavy, as seen off the
> east coast this week.
http://gcaptain.com/sandy-wave-height-analysis/ shows the peak wave heights for Sandy to be 43 to 47 feet, as
measured by NOAA buoys. However that is from a buoy that
is anchored in only 28m of water. With water that shallow,
the larger waves are probably already starting to feel the bottom and pile up. Note that the wave height today
is down to about 5 ft, so things have calmed down
pretty quickly as Sandy moved onshore.
Off the coast of Washington:
Big waves along Washington's coast
"High energy
The Pacific Northwest coast has one of the highest wave energy levels in the world. Wave heights on average are large. Big storm waves
Winter storms can generate waves more than 22.8 feet (7 meters) high. An intense winter storm during the 1997/98 El Niño produced waves 48 feet high. Getting bigger
Between 1975 and 1999, the largest storm waves off the coast of Washington increased in height from 26 feet (8 meters) to 39 feet (12 meters). What's causing the increase? El Niño may be a factor. The biggest
Extreme waves 50 to 90 feet in height have been recorded on and beyond the continental shelf. "
Off the East coast, wave heigts are also increasing:
"Significant wave heights measured during the hurricane season (which runs from June 1 to November 30) show that the most extreme occurrences during the 1996 to 2005 decade were both higher and more common than those of 30 years ago, having increased from about 23 feet (7 meters) to higher than 33 feet (10 meters). Hurricane season peaks in late August to early September. "
So the big waves went up to 10m or more on the East Coast and 12m or more on the West coast. Note that the reports cover two
different time periods, with the East coast data being more recent.
This is a report by two oceanography professors at the College of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University.
(disclaimer: I am a Faculty Research Assistant in physical
oceanography at OSU--but was not employed there when the report was written.)
On Oct 31, 8:18 am, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
> tutall <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >However, your price/performance critique is now dated at least a
> >decade ago. There is still some premium, much less these days,
> Not really. I just bought a new Windows box two weeks ago, and even
> without the sale (Costco was dumping Windows 7 prebuilts in
> anticipation of the release of Windows 8), it cost just a hair under
> half of what an equivalently performing Mac cost.
Sure, sure, when Apple got themselves out of the IBM chipset they
really helped themselves out.
You can still find Wintel machines for a LOT less than any Apple
machine, but, you get what you pay for.
Your "of comparable performance" is an important point.
> People without PC experience today are like people in 1978 with a
> black and white TV - largely either financially challenged, or
> charming anachronisms. Either way, they're fairly rare.
Well, there's experience and there's experience. Most corporate users
never have to learn a thing other than the power button.
> >Setting up a new PC is still not that easy.
> As compared to what?
A Mac of course.
> Have you actually bought a pre-built machine in
> the last decade? Unbox, attach cables, plug in, power up, Robert is
> your parent's sibling.
Network connectivity and set up still sucks.
IP stack has long been an issue with MS for some damn reason.
Drivers, accessories such a scanners and whatnot can still be too
problematic.
> Fine tuning the machine for your idiosyncratic
> preferences remains problematic, but for 90% of the users that's not
> even necessary - they just want a machine that more-or-less works.
