Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 6/9/2018 10:46 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:
>> graham wrote:
>>> On 2018-06-09 7:06 PM, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
>>>> In article >, notbob
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Much like the air-heads that use 'em fer a game of "loggerheads".
>>>>> That;s where a couple o' sailors would weld cannonballs to metal rods
>>>>> and wave 'em back and forth while another sailor would try and dodge
>>>>> 'em. Often, a sailor would end up with a broken leg or worse. IOW,
>>>>> "not too sharp".
>>>>
>>>> I believe that they used to weld two cannonballs to a chain and fire
>>>> them during battle. It was a dandy way to wreak havoc, especially to
>>>> ship's masts. But I may have dreamt that.
>>>>
>>> No! It was called chain-shot!
>>
>> How did they sync the two cannon? Obviously if one ignites a few
>> milliseconds difference, it won't work?
>
> Out of the same cannon. They also used grape shot. That was a bundle
> of smaller shot in a package that would split open.

That makes no sense ... what good would the chain be, if the two balls
are traveling along the same line? Might as well leave the chain off.

Maybe the balls had some sort of vanes to make one veer left, and the
other right?

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 9:22:03 AM UTC-10, Hank Rogers wrote:
> That makes no sense ... what good would the chain be, if the two balls
> are traveling along the same line? Might as well leave the chain off.
>
> Maybe the balls had some sort of vanes to make one veer left, and the
> other right?

My guess is that such a system would be highly unstable and the two balls would want to go in the direction they're traveling at the moment they leave the barrel but are constrained and controlled by the elasticity of the chain. My guess is that this would result in an stabilized flight where the balls are rotating around each other or are bouncing off each other or a combination of the two. My guess is that a ball leading another ball in the same flight pattern would be unlikely.

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 3:22:03 PM UTC-4, Hank Rogers wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 6/9/2018 10:46 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:
> >> graham wrote:
> >>> On 2018-06-09 7:06 PM, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> >>>> In article >, notbob
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Much like the air-heads that use 'em fer a game of "loggerheads".
> >>>>> That;s where a couple o' sailors would weld cannonballs to metal rods
> >>>>> and wave 'em back and forth while another sailor would try and dodge
> >>>>> 'em. Often, a sailor would end up with a broken leg or worse. IOW,
> >>>>> "not too sharp".
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe that they used to weld two cannonballs to a chain and fire
> >>>> them during battle. It was a dandy way to wreak havoc, especially to
> >>>> ship's masts. But I may have dreamt that.
> >>>>
> >>> No! It was called chain-shot!
> >>
> >> How did they sync the two cannon? Obviously if one ignites a few
> >> milliseconds difference, it won't work?
> >
> > Out of the same cannon. They also used grape shot. That was a bundle
> > of smaller shot in a package that would split open.
>
> That makes no sense ... what good would the chain be, if the two balls
> are traveling along the same line? Might as well leave the chain off.
>
> Maybe the balls had some sort of vanes to make one veer left, and the
> other right?

There's no way they would do anything but spin wildly around their
shifting common center of gravity. Why would you think they'd travel
like a rifle round?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain-shot>

Cindy Hamilton

"dsi1" wrote in message
...

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 9:22:03 AM UTC-10, Hank Rogers wrote:
> That makes no sense ... what good would the chain be, if the two balls
> are traveling along the same line? Might as well leave the chain off.
>
> Maybe the balls had some sort of vanes to make one veer left, and the
> other right?

My guess is that such a system would be highly unstable and the two balls
would want to go in the direction they're traveling at the moment they leave
the barrel but are constrained and controlled by the elasticity of the
chain. My guess is that this would result in an stabilized flight where the
balls are rotating around each other or are bouncing off each other or a
combination of the two. My guess is that a ball leading another ball in the
same flight pattern would be unlikely.

===

D who knows about such things says that makes sense! He says it may even be
that the balls were made to be different weights, so that their trajectory
would automatically differ.

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 9:57:46 AM UTC-10, Ophelia wrote:
>
> D who knows about such things says that makes sense! He says it may even be
> that the balls were made to be different weights, so that their trajectory
> would automatically differ.

It's probably a good thing to have a hubby that knows that sort of thing although, having one that knows about plumbing might be even better.

Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "dsi1" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 9:22:03 AM UTC-10, Hank Rogers wrote:
>> That makes no sense ... what good would the chain be, if the two balls
>> are traveling along the same line? Might as well leave the chain off.
>>
>> Maybe the balls had some sort of vanes to make one veer left, and the
>> other right?
>
> My guess is that such a system would be highly unstable and the two
> balls would want to go in the direction they're traveling at the moment
> they leave the barrel but are constrained and controlled by the
> elasticity of the chain. My guess is that this would result in an
> stabilized flight where the balls are rotating around each other or are
> bouncing off each other or a combination of the two. My guess is that a
> ball leading another ball in the same flight pattern would be unlikely.
>
> ===
>
> D who knows about such things says that makes sense! He says it may
> even be that the balls were made to be different weights, so that their
> trajectory would automatically differ.

I looked on wikipedia. Apparently they used half balls chained together.
So yes, it would be highly unstable, and do the trick. They also mention
the fact that it's *VERY* inaccurate, so only used at close range to
damage ship masts, rigging, etc.

On 2018-06-10 3:51 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 9:22:03 AM UTC-10, Hank Rogers wrote:
>> That makes no sense ... what good would the chain be, if the two
>> balls are traveling along the same line? Might as well leave the
>> chain off.
>>
>> Maybe the balls had some sort of vanes to make one veer left, and
>> the other right?
>
> My guess is that such a system would be highly unstable and the two
> balls would want to go in the direction they're traveling at the
> moment they leave the barrel but are constrained and controlled by
> the elasticity of the chain. My guess is that this would result in an
> stabilized flight where the balls are rotating around each other or
> are bouncing off each other or a combination of the two. My guess is
> that a ball leading another ball in the same flight pattern would be
> unlikely.
>

They did not have to be terribly accurate. They were fired at close
quarters and counted to some degree on wave action for the elevation.
The balls would not likely be rotating around each other. Both balls
would follow roughly the same trajectory, being chained together and the
idea was to rip through the sails and rigging to disable the ship so it
could not maneuver to engage.

"dsi1" wrote in message
...

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 9:57:46 AM UTC-10, Ophelia wrote:
>
> D who knows about such things says that makes sense! He says it may even
> be
> that the balls were made to be different weights, so that their trajectory
> would automatically differ.

It's probably a good thing to have a hubby that knows that sort of thing
although, having one that knows about plumbing might be even better.

==

I can't argue with that, but he ain't too bad on the plumbing scene either
.... although I do need to use a plumber when necessary <g>

"Hank Rogers" wrote in message news
Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "dsi1" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 9:22:03 AM UTC-10, Hank Rogers wrote:
>> That makes no sense ... what good would the chain be, if the two balls
>> are traveling along the same line? Might as well leave the chain off.
>>
>> Maybe the balls had some sort of vanes to make one veer left, and the
>> other right?
>
> My guess is that such a system would be highly unstable and the two
> balls would want to go in the direction they're traveling at the moment
> they leave the barrel but are constrained and controlled by the
> elasticity of the chain. My guess is that this would result in an
> stabilized flight where the balls are rotating around each other or are
> bouncing off each other or a combination of the two. My guess is that a
> ball leading another ball in the same flight pattern would be unlikely.
>
> ===
>
> D who knows about such things says that makes sense! He says it may
> even be that the balls were made to be different weights, so that their
> trajectory would automatically differ.

I looked on wikipedia. Apparently they used half balls chained together.
So yes, it would be highly unstable, and do the trick. They also mention
the fact that it's *VERY* inaccurate, so only used at close range to
damage ship masts, rigging, etc.

==

D agrees)

On 2018-06-10, graham > wrote:

> On 2018-06-09 7:06 PM, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
>> In article >, notbob

>> > wrote:

>>> Much like the air-heads that use 'em fer a game of "loggerheads".

>> I believe that they used to weld two cannonballs to a chain and fire
>> them during battle. It was a dandy way to wreak havoc, especially to
>> ship's masts. But I may have dreamt that.

> No! It was called chain-shot!

Actually, "loggerheads" were origninally used by ship's cooks to heat
stuff. It was often used like we use a "salamander" in modern
kitchens.

Definition of loggerhead:

3 An iron tool consisting of a long handle terminating in a ball or
bulb that is heated and used to melt tar or to heat liquids

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loggerhead

nb