T&T: Anchor clone

[Faure, Marin]

>I know plows are not the best in mud, but they sure fit well in my
pulpit.


Here's something to consider.  This is not my own theory, but simply
something I am repeating that I have read as well as heard from people
who are supposedly experts at this anchoring business.  With regards to
plow anchors----- the plow shape is designed to move forward through the
earth.  Hence their considerable popularity in the farming world.
Granted, a plow anchor has in effect a two-sided plow blade, and the
blades (flukes) are angled in such a way as to encourage the plow to dig
deeper as it moves forward, but it's designed to move forward
nevertheless.  Which means, the theory goes, it's not the world's best
shape for an anchor because the harder you pull on it the more
encouraged it is to move forward, and if the material it's in is
resistive to the flukes moving down, or is so soft that the flukes can
move forward but NOT down, you have a dragging anchor leaving a nice
furrow behind it.

As opposed to anchors with flukes shaped to resist forward motion.
Danforth, claw, spade, and other configurations where the fluke(s)
is/are broadside to the force trying to pull the anchor through the
bottom rather than flukes pointed in the direction of travel.

I know people have been using CQRs and the like for decades with great
success, so it would be foolish to suggest that the shape doesn't work.
But if the conditions are right (or maybe that should be wrong) I can
see how a plow anchor could drag where a spade like a Rocna for example,
wouldn't.

______________________________
C. Marin Faure
GB36-403 "La Perouse"
Bellingham, Washington