24001|23914|2010-09-21 14:11:57|Mark Hamill|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|Scott: Dyneema--Before thinking about it for another second price it out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24002|23914|2010-09-21 14:27:30|brentswain38|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|I don't see any real reason to change what already is well proven and is cheap. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Carl Anderson wrote: > > I explored this concept for using on MOM but scrapped the idea after > doing some more research. > The deadeyes cost quit a bit if you purchase them and you need 2 of them > for each shroud/stay. > And the rigging will need to be tightened often as the dyneema fiber > does slowly stretch (creep?). > Then there is the UV issue which is an uncertain part of the equation as > this is still a NEW product that doesn't have a 15-20 year usage history. > But this fiber is stronger than steel and lighter as well. > In the end we went with the tried & true 1X7 galvanized "hydro wire" > that is common on boats of Brent's design. > > Carl > sv-mom.com > > > On 9/21/2010 7:39 AM, scott wrote: > > > > has anyone here seen any of the boats that are going to the new > > synthetic rigging using dyneema dux? > > > > here is a writeup of a westsail 32 they did this with.. I like the > > concept a lot.. It takes rigging back to a simpler era that anyone can > > do it, no special tools, but with the strength and light weight of > > tomorrow. I have heard several very positive comments from people that > > have done it but as always since it isn't in common usage it doesn't > > have along track record. > > > > http://www.colligomarine.com/docs/newsletters/Nov%202009.pdf > > > > scott > > > > > You can build those poured sockets in my book for under a buck, in > > stainless if you want. > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24003|23914|2010-09-21 14:30:38|Matt Malone|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|Mickey, With boat ownership, if one lacks certain things, yes, one had better be very rich. The first thing I would say is a must is a solid set of practical skills. You need not be the award winning handyman of your town, but someone has to consider you a handy-man or you better multiply all costs by four. Secondly, a skill for either creative solutions to problems, or curiosity and skillful imitation is needed. I would have trouble seeing the NEED to spending $80,000 on a boat I build. I would have to be thinking of Monel, lots of big purchased brass ports, and a production mast to start, because if I am paying $80,000, I want a top-of-the line shell and stick to start on. I would sooner give up the full-blown integrated instrument system, nav, autohelm, fancy teak&holly interior, and have a solid hull that will never rust, ever. (I am not saying no instruments at all -- radar in heavily foggy areas is a must, but the rest, have inexpensive versions, GPS, depth gauge, wind vane, and wind-vane self-steering.) I imagine the interior being varnished 1/4" fir plywood, because, for new coverings, it is reasonably inexpensive, and OK to look at. 20 sheets of fir at $25/sheet is only $500 and will go a very long way to making a classic looking interior. But that is a dream. Realistically, Brent has been talking about $16,000 in steel, with creative scrounging. If one is no good at creative scrounging it seems the first unexpected thing that comes up at sea, that one has not shipped a spare for, is a voyage-ending problem. Those with more creativity, and frankly, a good junk box, rich in fasteners, plugs and fittings, can solve a lot of problems either inexpensively, or temporarily in an emergency situation. The problem is, at thousands of dollars a year to keep a boat in a marina, there are a lot of people who have fallen out of love with their boats, and have been trying to sell them, and had no luck, and now they just want rid of the thing before the next fee payment is due. Some very nice looking boats, and occasionally some very good boats can be had for much less than $80,000 on the second hand market. By all means if one has $80,000 feel free, but it is not needed, not in my opinion. There are too many options, too many other ways to get sailing. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mickeyolaf@... Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 05:24:19 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability All I was saying is u have to have lots of uncommitted cash to build a boat. There are people here who have frugally finished their SW 36's who have said their boats cost $80,000.00. That's $3333 a month over two years. $1666/m over four. $1666 a month of after tax $'s is a lot of money. Anybody who after paying their bills still has $1666 a month left over is rich as far as I am concerned. You can make it $833 a month for 8 years but still a big commitment of monthly income. I don't have $833 left over every month. If I did my wife would eventually find out and I would have $8.33 left over. So to build a boat u have to be wealthy, have a lot cash in the bank or a great income that's not already spent. In my case I worked overtime but now my back is sore. I think lack of $ is the main reason so many home built boat projects wallow in dust and why so many talk about building and never do. I know now that my boat will take 10 years. Why? Because it seems it's predetermined for me that as soon as I have non-committed $'s available for the boat that the transmission in my truck will go or I will need a new furnace. Brent, I'm not bitching. Just facing the facts of the costs of building. We all envy your frugality. But I want teak bulkheads, an aluminum mast, a water filter and a furnace. Men all have trouble taking direction. That why none of us read them until we can't get something to work. If I worked in a BBQ manufacturing plant I would always put a couple of extra screws and bolts in the box on purpose. Just for those guys who don't read the directions. They'd be scratching their heads bald trying to figure out what those extras fastenings were for. We all take different routes to get to the same end. If we didn't we'd still be hunting with spears. I will finish in spite of my stainless steel rigging. P.S. I bought a new stainless Norsesman 5/16 terminal on Saturday for $10. Now that is scrounging as far as I am concerned. I may sleep with it tonight or wear it around my neck to keep committed. "If u are rich and money is no object build a boat". --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I could never have afforded the boat I have, whether I bought it, or hired others to build it. So I did the work myself, and was sailing for $6,000, in my 31. > Anyone can get a boat for drastically less than buying one, as long as you avoid paying others to work on it and do most of the work yourself. > The cost is porportionate to how much you do yourself and how much you pay others to do. > It's also porportionate to how much new stuff you use, and how much you scrounge. > Most builders have checked out the used boat market, and having concluded that only works if you are simply able to accept any boat. If you want a good boat, then often the only way to get what you want is to build it yourself. There is a lot of crap for sale on the used boat market , but it is mostly crap. > A friend told people they could get out cruising for cheap, "IF" they used used sails, galv rigging , scrounged materials, etc etc. Then people would go out , hire people to do everything , line the boat inside and out with teak, buy new aluminium masts and rigs with new stainless rigging, buy new sails , etc etc, then bitch about the fact that it was not cheap. > If all else fails, follow the directions. Skip the directions and any problems you have are of your own making. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mickeyolaf" wrote: > > > > 1. If u are rich and money is no object buy a boat. > > > > 2. If u are rich and money is no object build a boat > > > > > > > > > > > "To be honest I am struggling with the cost to build vs. buying a good used boat. Maybe I will end up doing both, eventually." > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24004|23914|2010-09-21 14:33:28|brentswain38|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|I think something like a Say's Rig would be better and far simpler. It's just a trimtab hung over the transom, going into a bracket off the back of the rudder. Getting the negative feedback is the important thing. Wouldn't cost much to build. With my rig, the feedback is adjustable in two ways, by moving the half inch bolts . Never had to, tho. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > > I have your book.. > > I am planning on building my own watermaker unless someone gives me one for free :) lol. > > however the downeaster 38 has a high transom with the rudder just under it. It is hung on the back of the keel with a support under it. However I have seen a couple of designs you can build yourself that use an inclined trim tab style. To be honest I haven't quite wrapped my head around a true understanding of windvanes that would allow me to picture in my head how it all works with the linkages and such... I suppose when I turn to actually doing that project I will have to knuckle down and figure it out. Especially if I want to build one. > > here are side and rear views of my boat showing the transom profile and how the rudder is set. > http://www.scottcarle.com/wordpress/?page_id=626 > > I have been looking at variations of some of these designs for the windvane. > http://www.mindspring.com/~waltmur/Self-Steering/ > http://www.sailsarana.com/selfsteering%20gear/sarana%20trim%20tab.pdf > another cool self steering howto... > > I figure between your book and some of these references on the web I should be able to figure it out. :) hopefully > > scott > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > My book tells you how to build a 540 GPD watermaker for under$1,000 and a windvane for transom hung rudders. > > > | 24005|23914|2010-09-21 14:39:44|brentswain38|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|When a friend moved his 36 out to a mooring buoy, he said "Wow , I saved $3500 in no time." I don't tie in marinas, but stay anchored out. It would cost more than my entire cost of living to stay in a marina. Mickey, doe your boat have an operational motor? If so, then it's time to launch and get some enjoyment out of her. The rest can be done later. It's easier to work off a dock than up a ladder. Hauling out later is cheaper than paying moorage for even a short time. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Mickey, > > With boat ownership, if one lacks certain things, yes, one had better be very rich. The first thing I would say is a must is a solid set of practical skills. You need not be the award winning handyman of your town, but someone has to consider you a handy-man or you better multiply all costs by four. Secondly, a skill for either creative solutions to problems, or curiosity and skillful imitation is needed. > > I would have trouble seeing the NEED to spending $80,000 on a boat I build. I would have to be thinking of Monel, lots of big purchased brass ports, and a production mast to start, because if I am paying $80,000, I want a top-of-the line shell and stick to start on. I would sooner give up the full-blown integrated instrument system, nav, autohelm, fancy teak&holly interior, and have a solid hull that will never rust, ever. (I am not saying no instruments at all -- radar in heavily foggy areas is a must, but the rest, have inexpensive versions, GPS, depth gauge, wind vane, and wind-vane self-steering.) I imagine the interior being varnished 1/4" fir plywood, because, for new coverings, it is reasonably inexpensive, and OK to look at. 20 sheets of fir at $25/sheet is only $500 and will go a very long way to making a classic looking interior. > > But that is a dream. Realistically, Brent has been talking about $16,000 in steel, with creative scrounging. If one is no good at creative scrounging it seems the first unexpected thing that comes up at sea, that one has not shipped a spare for, is a voyage-ending problem. Those with more creativity, and frankly, a good junk box, rich in fasteners, plugs and fittings, can solve a lot of problems either inexpensively, or temporarily in an emergency situation. > > The problem is, at thousands of dollars a year to keep a boat in a marina, there are a lot of people who have fallen out of love with their boats, and have been trying to sell them, and had no luck, and now they just want rid of the thing before the next fee payment is due. Some very nice looking boats, and occasionally some very good boats can be had for much less than $80,000 on the second hand market. > > By all means if one has $80,000 feel free, but it is not needed, not in my opinion. There are too many options, too many other ways to get sailing. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mickeyolaf@... > Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 05:24:19 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All I was saying is u have to have lots of uncommitted cash to build a boat. > > There are people here who have frugally finished their SW 36's who have said their boats cost $80,000.00. > > That's $3333 a month over two years. $1666/m over four. $1666 a month of after tax $'s is a lot of money. > > Anybody who after paying their bills still has $1666 a month left over is rich as far as I am concerned. > > You can make it $833 a month for 8 years but still a big commitment of monthly income. I don't have $833 left over every month. If I did my wife would eventually find out and I would have $8.33 left over. > > > > So to build a boat u have to be wealthy, have a lot cash in the bank or a great income that's not already spent. In my case I worked overtime but now my back is sore. > > > > I think lack of $ is the main reason so many home built boat projects wallow in dust and why so many talk about building and never do. > > > > I know now that my boat will take 10 years. Why? Because it seems it's predetermined for me that as soon as I have non-committed $'s available for the boat that the transmission in my truck will go or I will need a new furnace. > > > > Brent, I'm not bitching. Just facing the facts of the costs of building. We all envy your frugality. But I want teak bulkheads, an aluminum mast, a water filter and a furnace. > > > > Men all have trouble taking direction. That why none of us read them until we can't get something to work. If I worked in a BBQ manufacturing plant I would always put a couple of extra screws and bolts in the box on purpose. Just for those guys who don't read the directions. They'd be scratching their heads bald trying to figure out what those extras fastenings were for. > > > > We all take different routes to get to the same end. If we didn't we'd still be hunting with spears. I will finish in spite of my stainless steel rigging. > > > > > > P.S. I bought a new stainless Norsesman 5/16 terminal on Saturday for $10. Now that is scrounging as far as I am concerned. I may sleep with it tonight or wear it around my neck to keep committed. > > > > "If u are rich and money is no object build a boat". > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I could never have afforded the boat I have, whether I bought it, or hired others to build it. So I did the work myself, and was sailing for $6,000, in my 31. > > > Anyone can get a boat for drastically less than buying one, as long as you avoid paying others to work on it and do most of the work yourself. > > > The cost is porportionate to how much you do yourself and how much you pay others to do. > > > It's also porportionate to how much new stuff you use, and how much you scrounge. > > > Most builders have checked out the used boat market, and having concluded that only works if you are simply able to accept any boat. If you want a good boat, then often the only way to get what you want is to build it yourself. There is a lot of crap for sale on the used boat market , but it is mostly crap. > > > A friend told people they could get out cruising for cheap, "IF" they used used sails, galv rigging , scrounged materials, etc etc. Then people would go out , hire people to do everything , line the boat inside and out with teak, buy new aluminium masts and rigs with new stainless rigging, buy new sails , etc etc, then bitch about the fact that it was not cheap. > > > If all else fails, follow the directions. Skip the directions and any problems you have are of your own making. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mickeyolaf" wrote: > > > > > > > > 1. If u are rich and money is no object buy a boat. > > > > > > > > 2. If u are rich and money is no object build a boat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "To be honest I am struggling with the cost to build vs. buying a good used boat. Maybe I will end up doing both, eventually." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24006|23988|2010-09-21 14:45:53|Etc|aluminum trimaran?|Hi John, I have the same project! Buidling a cruising trimaran in alu for living aboard with the family. I don't find a lot of information about that on the web. I like Origami ( plate-first ) style construction for making hull. It's make a lot of sense for me and it's faster for the amateur builder ( and add frame later when necessary ), so building 3 hulls is doable I guest. All the rigging, systems ( electrical, mechanical, ... ), and the interior work will be a big job. Maybe a free standing mast can simplify the rigging work and will be safer too. I guest that aluminum plate can replace plywood panel in most case ( I'm wrong about that ? ). So most of the old cruising trimaran can be build in alu I suppose. ( like tri-start http://www.edhorstmanmultihulldesigns.com/specs/TRI-40LW_3view.pdf , Norman Cross http://mysite.verizon.net/res78939/id17.html, Searunner, etc ... ) But I would like to find a more recent design with a plate first construction method ( Brent, are you interested ? :) ... Maybe a bit off topic, but it's a good introduction to the design of the "origami" cutting pattern : The excellent Yago project ( http://www.yago-project.com/ , you can download is workbook here http://www.yago-project.com/component/option,com_weblinks/task,view/catid,95/id,1/ ) . In the Kyloe project, a naval architect student do all the design. He did the plan and build the boat (27') in a short time with a origami like pattern. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_QpsOYUHsM , http://www.norvege-fr.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4099 -> pictures at the bottom ) Kyloe project quote : " The main idea of the construction was to developp a developpable shape little more fancy than an OVNI. I wanted aluminium because its easy and fast to build (no paint), reliable (impact at sea with a flooded container, rocs, etc..), possible to repair, and can be recycled. But I wanted to go fast, so, to be light (2,5t), and have nice smooth shapes in the front, and planning shapes in the aft. But building a hull in shape (i mean here, not made of flat plates) is long and expensive. And as I say, the only cruiser on the market, 28ft, with a hull in aluminium in shape (round), costed 120kEUR in 2004. (of course, plastic is way cheaper). A second hand boat in aluminium of this size costed 30 to 45 kEUR, and where not able to reach a double digit speed... So I spent a year playing with paper, bending it, and step after step, I designed the shape of the plate before being bent, to achieve the hull shape I was dreaming of. I ended up with an inverted stem, but the wetted surface was exactly what I had in mind at the begining, and very similar to the last Farr designs. The "beauty of it is that the hull is made of one plate... So, instead of welding all the small plates (50cm x50 cm sometimes...), you just weld the 3 edges of 4m in the aft part and you have a hull ! When you know that corrosion and micro-cracks usually happen on welded conexions, it makes a lot of sense to try to reduce as much as possible the number of plates forming the skin of the boat. The problem with this methode is that it is quite hard to predict the final shape of the hull (it was too complex for the softwares I tried). So I did models and used 3d Measure robots to make volumes calculations, but it was just checking. So my boat is "hand designed". For example, in freeship, you can design a hull made of developpable plates, and extract the profile of each plate. I did the other way round. I designed the plate, and didn't find a software able to make a hull out of it. Then the construction process is very easy: You weld the biggest aluminium plates you can find together to achieve the plate needed ( for my boat : 8,6m x 5m when the hull is "flat" on the floor, I had optimized the design to fit in two plates, just.) You cut it to the correct profile (with a circular saw, it took one hour) Then, with webbing and pieces of wood, you use your common sense of mechanics to bend this big plate, adjust the edges in front of each other, and finally close the bow (90 degrees). You weld by points the different edges to keep everything together, and you weld the deck structure (8 transversal stiffners) to fix the shape (the top is completly open at that time.) 3 days have passed and you can walk in your hull ! You add the deck, the deckouse, the cockpit (easy shapes), weld everything tight, and after 3 weeks, you can move your "boat" wherever you want : it is closed, it floats, you can work inside, it doesn't make a big difference with an old second hand boat. The rest of the construction is to weld additionnal structure inside the hull, reinforcement for the rig, make the accomodation, paint the deck and deckhouse, install the equipment. I finished after 14 months, working on it just during weekends. But as you know, a boat is never finished, so , several years later, I still have plans for different improvements. I spent 7 kEUR for the aluminium. I don't remember the rest right now, but the total was 25kEUR in 2006, with new sails, new engine, AIS, GPS, etc. I spent some more in 2008 before sailing away ( solar panels, dinghy, etc..) I am happy with the result. It is too different to be easily compared, but I still think that I would make a benefit if I sold it. It has its own spirit, and I always have some "curious" coming onboard when I stop somewhere. But since my girlfriend (I didn't know her when I built the boat) is sea sick, I changed my mind and offshore cruising is not in my plans for the short future. But I sailed alone to marocco, turned around spain, faced 40 knots of wind (maybe more, excuse me, I stayed inside), and I love my boat. Isn't it the most important for a boat builder ? This very special feeling, when finally, everything works ok ? That you have the bimini on, the auto pilot, the asy spinaker in the air, and that you look at your boat sliding on the long swell at 10,5knots, on your way to the tropics? This single moment would pay for all the hours spent on the construction." --- Kyloe project end quote. My 2 cents, Etienne >> I've been searching through this forum looking for information about whether it is practical to build the hull of a cruising 35'-40' trimaran out of aluminum using the origami technique? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24007|23988|2010-09-21 14:55:01|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: aluminum trimaran?|Ben, this was a GREAT link. And a great story. Here is a pic of the failed weld. It came from latitude 38, here. http://www.latitude38.com/lectronic/lectronicday.lasso?date=2008-02-18&dayid=74 Bad Weld These are the cross-wise spars that join the 2 hulls together. It is, imo, a very poor construction in this part. There are at least 4, maybe more, tubular sections that join together in a critical joint, in the most stressed part of the hull. This is the single most important section of the hull, and just about the only really important one, imo. These are also wracking stresses, and I think that the spars should be stronger and stiffer. This single joint should have been machined from a solid billet, with the tubes going inside the joints, and then welded into permanent structures. It could have been done by any manual machinist (slowly) without any major difficulty (machining alu is extremely easy) for little money (would have taken about 2 days, with buildigs jigs, on an old Bridgeport manual machine). I admire the guys tenacity, enthusiasm and spunk. On other ventures, well, let´s just say less so. I don´t know that the guy deserves all the bad press, quicklly seen on several links. Maybe he does, but if he finally makes it, maybe he does not. I would certainly not invest with the guy, but really hope he makes it. Sailing (also) has far too many silly moneybags in it, in total opposition to the simple and stout and reliable Brentboat filosophy. The tri proves, according to his very limited experience in it, (and I believ that part completely) that strong highly powered very slim hulls are blazing fast... but then again we all knew that. I will keep an eye on this... thanks again for a great story. (That joint could have been done by a very highly experienced expert alu welder. It would have been very challenging. It is obvious the engineering in it was lacking. I would never have been able to do such a weld, and would have done the joints in steel and the spars as well.) > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 01:27:21PM +0100, Denis Buggy wrote: > > > > these studies all have a central theme and it is that all around the > > world naval colleges and architects all agree that a stabilized slim > > long and shallow central hull produces the most efficient means known > > yet of moving a boat through the water ------some people call these > > craft TRIMARANS . > > the most developed version of this hull to date is USS INDEPENDENCE > > cost a mere 500 million. > > Or you could have something almost exactly like it for about $25k. > > http://www.esquire.com/the-side/blog/tincan > > :) > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24008|23988|2010-09-21 16:00:41|Ben Okopnik|Re: aluminum trimaran?|On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 02:09:06PM -0400, Etc wrote: > > In the Kyloe project, a naval architect student do all the design. He > did the plan and build the boat (27') in a short time with a origami > like pattern. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_QpsOYUHsM , > http://www.norvege-fr.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4099 -> pictures at > the bottom ) Wow. That's a good-looking boat - and the fact that he built it with origami-like techniques makes it even more interesting. Thanks for posting this! -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24009|23988|2010-09-21 16:51:22|brentswain38|aluminum trimaran?|I wouldn't be interested in designing a tri. There are many people out here with far more experience in trimarans. I prefer monos, as that is my experience is. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Etc wrote: > > Hi John, > > I have the same project! Buidling a cruising trimaran in alu for living > aboard with the family. I don't find a lot of information about that on > the web. > > I like Origami ( plate-first ) style construction for making hull. It's > make a lot of sense for me and it's faster for the amateur builder ( and > add frame later when necessary ), so building 3 hulls is doable I guest. > > All the rigging, systems ( electrical, mechanical, ... ), and the > interior work will be a big job. Maybe a free standing mast can simplify > the rigging work and will be safer too. > > I guest that aluminum plate can replace plywood panel in most case ( I'm > wrong about that ? ). So most of the old cruising trimaran can be build > in alu I suppose. > ( like tri-start > http://www.edhorstmanmultihulldesigns.com/specs/TRI-40LW_3view.pdf , > Norman Cross http://mysite.verizon.net/res78939/id17.html, Searunner, > etc ... ) > > But I would like to find a more recent design with a plate first > construction method ( Brent, are you interested ? :) ... > > Maybe a bit off topic, but it's a good introduction to the design of the > "origami" cutting pattern : > > The excellent Yago project ( http://www.yago-project.com/ , you can > download is workbook here > http://www.yago-project.com/component/option,com_weblinks/task,view/catid,95/id,1/ > ) . > > In the Kyloe project, a naval architect student do all the design. He > did the plan and build the boat (27') in a short time with a origami > like pattern. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_QpsOYUHsM , > http://www.norvege-fr.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4099 -> pictures at > the bottom ) > > Kyloe project quote : " > The main idea of the construction was to developp a developpable shape > little more fancy than an OVNI. I wanted aluminium because its easy and > fast to build (no paint), reliable (impact at sea with a flooded > container, rocs, etc..), possible to repair, and can be recycled. > But I wanted to go fast, so, to be light (2,5t), and have nice smooth > shapes in the front, and planning shapes in the aft. > But building a hull in shape (i mean here, not made of flat plates) is > long and expensive. And as I say, the only cruiser on the market, 28ft, > with a hull in aluminium in shape (round), costed 120kEUR in 2004. (of > course, plastic is way cheaper). A second hand boat in aluminium of this > size costed 30 to 45 kEUR, and where not able to reach a double digit > speed... > > So I spent a year playing with paper, bending it, and step after step, I > designed the shape of the plate before being bent, to achieve the hull > shape I was dreaming of. I ended up with an inverted stem, but the > wetted surface was exactly what I had in mind at the begining, and very > similar to the last Farr designs. > The "beauty of it is that the hull is made of one plate... > So, instead of welding all the small plates (50cm x50 cm sometimes...), > you just weld the 3 edges of 4m in the aft part and you have a hull ! > When you know that corrosion and micro-cracks usually happen on welded > conexions, it makes a lot of sense to try to reduce as much as possible > the number of plates forming the skin of the boat. > > The problem with this methode is that it is quite hard to predict the > final shape of the hull (it was too complex for the softwares I tried). > So I did models and used 3d Measure robots to make volumes calculations, > but it was just checking. So my boat is "hand designed". > For example, in freeship, you can design a hull made of developpable > plates, and extract the profile of each plate. I did the other way > round. I designed the plate, and didn't find a software able to make a > hull out of it. > > Then the construction process is very easy: > You weld the biggest aluminium plates you can find together to achieve > the plate needed ( for my boat : 8,6m x 5m when the hull is "flat" on > the floor, I had optimized the design to fit in two plates, just.) You > cut it to the correct profile (with a circular saw, it took one hour) > Then, with webbing and pieces of wood, you use your common sense of > mechanics to bend this big plate, adjust the edges in front of each > other, and finally close the bow (90 degrees). You weld by points the > different edges to keep everything together, and you weld the deck > structure (8 transversal stiffners) to fix the shape (the top is > completly open at that time.) > > 3 days have passed and you can walk in your hull ! > > You add the deck, the deckouse, the cockpit (easy shapes), weld > everything tight, and after 3 weeks, you can move your "boat" wherever > you want : it is closed, it floats, you can work inside, it doesn't make > a big difference with an old second hand boat. > > The rest of the construction is to weld additionnal structure inside the > hull, reinforcement for the rig, make the accomodation, paint the deck > and deckhouse, install the equipment. I finished after 14 months, > working on it just during weekends. But as you know, a boat is never > finished, so , several years later, I still have plans for different > improvements. > > I spent 7 kEUR for the aluminium. I don't remember the rest right now, > but the total was 25kEUR in 2006, with new sails, new engine, AIS, GPS, > etc. > I spent some more in 2008 before sailing away ( solar panels, dinghy, > etc..) > > I am happy with the result. It is too different to be easily compared, > but I still think that I would make a benefit if I sold it. It has its > own spirit, and I always have some "curious" coming onboard when I stop > somewhere. But since my girlfriend (I didn't know her when I built the > boat) is sea sick, I changed my mind and offshore cruising is not in my > plans for the short future. But I sailed alone to marocco, turned around > spain, faced 40 knots of wind (maybe more, excuse me, I stayed inside), > and I love my boat. Isn't it the most important for a boat builder ? > This very special feeling, when finally, everything works ok ? That you > have the bimini on, the auto pilot, the asy spinaker in the air, and > that you look at your boat sliding on the long swell at 10,5knots, on > your way to the tropics? > This single moment would pay for all the hours spent on the > construction." --- Kyloe project end quote. > > My 2 cents, > Etienne > > >> I've been searching through this forum looking for information about > whether it is practical to build the hull of a cruising 35'-40' trimaran > out of aluminum using the origami technique? > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24010|23914|2010-09-21 17:01:53|brentswain38|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|When Timo figured out it was cheaper to launch his boat in the spring and haul it out in the fall, he launched her, had a great summer cruising in her, then hauled out and put her in a backyard for the winter. This gave him a far better idea of how he wanted the interior. The following spring he launched again ,for a fraction the cost of having spent the winter in a marina, and got a lot done. He at last report, was in the Indian Ocean. If, after cruising a bit, you decide that looking at teak, etc , is worth giving up years of cruising, you can always add it later, as with many "Improvements." Those of my clients who have spent a lot on cosmetic trendyness , after years of cruising, have all said "Never again. Next time, painted salvaged plywood." This is a common sentiment amoung those with a lot of cruising experience. Check out the galley photos in Bob Griffiths book "Blue Water." Now there's a guy with a,lot of offshore experience, who knows what matters. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > When a friend moved his 36 out to a mooring buoy, he said "Wow , I saved $3500 in no time." > I don't tie in marinas, but stay anchored out. It would cost more than my entire cost of living to stay in a marina. Mickey, doe your boat have an operational motor? If so, then it's time to launch and get some enjoyment out of her. The rest can be done later. It's easier to work off a dock than up a ladder. Hauling out later is cheaper than paying moorage for even a short time. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > Mickey, > > > > With boat ownership, if one lacks certain things, yes, one had better be very rich. The first thing I would say is a must is a solid set of practical skills. You need not be the award winning handyman of your town, but someone has to consider you a handy-man or you better multiply all costs by four. Secondly, a skill for either creative solutions to problems, or curiosity and skillful imitation is needed. > > > > I would have trouble seeing the NEED to spending $80,000 on a boat I build. I would have to be thinking of Monel, lots of big purchased brass ports, and a production mast to start, because if I am paying $80,000, I want a top-of-the line shell and stick to start on. I would sooner give up the full-blown integrated instrument system, nav, autohelm, fancy teak&holly interior, and have a solid hull that will never rust, ever. (I am not saying no instruments at all -- radar in heavily foggy areas is a must, but the rest, have inexpensive versions, GPS, depth gauge, wind vane, and wind-vane self-steering.) I imagine the interior being varnished 1/4" fir plywood, because, for new coverings, it is reasonably inexpensive, and OK to look at. 20 sheets of fir at $25/sheet is only $500 and will go a very long way to making a classic looking interior. > > > > But that is a dream. Realistically, Brent has been talking about $16,000 in steel, with creative scrounging. If one is no good at creative scrounging it seems the first unexpected thing that comes up at sea, that one has not shipped a spare for, is a voyage-ending problem. Those with more creativity, and frankly, a good junk box, rich in fasteners, plugs and fittings, can solve a lot of problems either inexpensively, or temporarily in an emergency situation. > > > > The problem is, at thousands of dollars a year to keep a boat in a marina, there are a lot of people who have fallen out of love with their boats, and have been trying to sell them, and had no luck, and now they just want rid of the thing before the next fee payment is due. Some very nice looking boats, and occasionally some very good boats can be had for much less than $80,000 on the second hand market. > > > > By all means if one has $80,000 feel free, but it is not needed, not in my opinion. There are too many options, too many other ways to get sailing. > > > > Matt > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: mickeyolaf@ > > Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 05:24:19 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All I was saying is u have to have lots of uncommitted cash to build a boat. > > > > There are people here who have frugally finished their SW 36's who have said their boats cost $80,000.00. > > > > That's $3333 a month over two years. $1666/m over four. $1666 a month of after tax $'s is a lot of money. > > > > Anybody who after paying their bills still has $1666 a month left over is rich as far as I am concerned. > > > > You can make it $833 a month for 8 years but still a big commitment of monthly income. I don't have $833 left over every month. If I did my wife would eventually find out and I would have $8.33 left over. > > > > > > > > So to build a boat u have to be wealthy, have a lot cash in the bank or a great income that's not already spent. In my case I worked overtime but now my back is sore. > > > > > > > > I think lack of $ is the main reason so many home built boat projects wallow in dust and why so many talk about building and never do. > > > > > > > > I know now that my boat will take 10 years. Why? Because it seems it's predetermined for me that as soon as I have non-committed $'s available for the boat that the transmission in my truck will go or I will need a new furnace. > > > > > > > > Brent, I'm not bitching. Just facing the facts of the costs of building. We all envy your frugality. But I want teak bulkheads, an aluminum mast, a water filter and a furnace. > > > > > > > > Men all have trouble taking direction. That why none of us read them until we can't get something to work. If I worked in a BBQ manufacturing plant I would always put a couple of extra screws and bolts in the box on purpose. Just for those guys who don't read the directions. They'd be scratching their heads bald trying to figure out what those extras fastenings were for. > > > > > > > > We all take different routes to get to the same end. If we didn't we'd still be hunting with spears. I will finish in spite of my stainless steel rigging. > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. I bought a new stainless Norsesman 5/16 terminal on Saturday for $10. Now that is scrounging as far as I am concerned. I may sleep with it tonight or wear it around my neck to keep committed. > > > > > > > > "If u are rich and money is no object build a boat". > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I could never have afforded the boat I have, whether I bought it, or hired others to build it. So I did the work myself, and was sailing for $6,000, in my 31. > > > > > Anyone can get a boat for drastically less than buying one, as long as you avoid paying others to work on it and do most of the work yourself. > > > > > The cost is porportionate to how much you do yourself and how much you pay others to do. > > > > > It's also porportionate to how much new stuff you use, and how much you scrounge. > > > > > Most builders have checked out the used boat market, and having concluded that only works if you are simply able to accept any boat. If you want a good boat, then often the only way to get what you want is to build it yourself. There is a lot of crap for sale on the used boat market , but it is mostly crap. > > > > > A friend told people they could get out cruising for cheap, "IF" they used used sails, galv rigging , scrounged materials, etc etc. Then people would go out , hire people to do everything , line the boat inside and out with teak, buy new aluminium masts and rigs with new stainless rigging, buy new sails , etc etc, then bitch about the fact that it was not cheap. > > > > > If all else fails, follow the directions. Skip the directions and any problems you have are of your own making. > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mickeyolaf" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. If u are rich and money is no object buy a boat. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. If u are rich and money is no object build a boat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "To be honest I am struggling with the cost to build vs. buying a good used boat. Maybe I will end up doing both, eventually." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 24011|24011|2010-09-21 17:18:13|brentswain38|Solar Powered Candles|Smilin Tom, on Cortes Island, told me of a neat use for those solar powered garden lights. You put them in front of a port , or under a skylight in day time, then put them upside down on your table at night as electric candles, eliminating any draw on your battery. A bit dim for reading, but some use them for reading and they are getting brighter. The amber ones are much easier on the eyes, the white ones make far better anchor lights. Unfortunately, they don't always say on the box , which they are. However, as anchor lights are sometimes hidden behind rigging, a couple of extra ones are not a bad idea. They keep getting cheaper and cheaper.| 24012|23987|2010-09-21 17:30:54|h|Re: snatch blocks|I have pictures of the blocks I made, "haidan's boat" in photos section somewhere around the fiftieth photo. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "john" wrote: > > I have found some nice photos of brent blocks. Can anyone direct me to photos of brent snatch blocks, thanks, john > | 24013|23914|2010-09-21 17:32:06|Paul Wilson|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|I am going to experiment with doing the lowers and backstays with Dynex Dux on my 36 footer. For chafe reasons, I will keep wire uppers and forestays. It is about the same price as regular stainless rigging if you buy the fittings currently on the market. If you make your own thimbles and use deadeyes and lanyards instead of turnbuckles, it should be much cheaper. There are several different special thimbles being made for it by companies like Precourt and Colligo but I don't like the idea of aluminum castings mixed with SS in a salt environment so opted for making my own bronze thimbles and am saving a lot of money. You can buy cast SS thimbles but they are not totally solid so I was worried about them collapsing under load. I took some 10mm solid galv thimbles to a foundry and had 18 cast in bronze for a cost of $15 each. You need to clean an polish them up but that is no big deal with a file and a sanding disc on a grinder. I am reusing my old turnbuckles. On investigation, most of the early problems occured using Dynex (dyneema) while the newer Dynex Dux is much stronger, prestretched, heat treated and thus has much less creep. It is more expensive than regular Dynex. It is made by Hampidjian which is an Icelandic company. The cheapest place I found to buy it was in Newfoundland at www.codend.ca. I paid $8 CDN a meter for 9mm which is cheaper than buying the equivalent 5/16 inch SS wire which I used before. 9mm Dynex Dux has a breaking strength of 12 ton so much stronger than wire. The main advantage to my eyes is less weight with more strength. The main disadvantage other than cost is chafe although they claim it is very tough since it was designed for trawl lines in commercial fishing. I am not so worried about the UV since 9mm Dynex Dux is about twice the strength of SS wire. I will probably cover it with cheap black poly tubing if it fits or maybe even heat shrink or good tape. This will add more windage. I will probably be launching again this summer after a long refit. It is an experiment, as I say, but definitely a viable option now rather than SS. If money is a problem, do as Brent says and use galv rigging. I will post again when I see how the experiment works out. I suspect I will have to adjust the rigging a lot at first until it settles but all rigging must be watched when first installed anyway. I don't think it will be a major problem and I am looking forward to a stiffer, stronger and faster boat. Cheers, Paul On 9/22/2010 2:39 AM, scott wrote: > > has anyone here seen any of the boats that are going to the new > synthetic rigging using dyneema dux? > > | 24014|23914|2010-09-21 17:55:49|h|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|I certainly have no regrets over the last year of living in this pink foam palace with roughly cut bare plywood here and there, I'm not paying rent, which is a big one especially when you make less than 10k a year as I always have, never want to give money to the government. I think this winter I'll try and at least panel the rest of the walls and maybe get some flooring in and finish a few more storage areas, got the time.... --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > When Timo figured out it was cheaper to launch his boat in the spring and haul it out in the fall, he launched her, had a great summer cruising in her, then hauled out and put her in a backyard for the winter. This gave him a far better idea of how he wanted the interior. The following spring he launched again ,for a fraction the cost of having spent the winter in a marina, and got a lot done. He at last report, was in the Indian Ocean. > If, after cruising a bit, you decide that looking at teak, etc , is worth giving up years of cruising, you can always add it later, as with many "Improvements." > Those of my clients who have spent a lot on cosmetic trendyness , after years of cruising, have all said "Never again. Next time, painted salvaged plywood." This is a common sentiment amoung those with a lot of cruising experience. > Check out the galley photos in Bob Griffiths book "Blue Water." Now there's a guy with a,lot of offshore experience, who knows what matters. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > When a friend moved his 36 out to a mooring buoy, he said "Wow , I saved $3500 in no time." > > I don't tie in marinas, but stay anchored out. It would cost more than my entire cost of living to stay in a marina. Mickey, doe your boat have an operational motor? If so, then it's time to launch and get some enjoyment out of her. The rest can be done later. It's easier to work off a dock than up a ladder. Hauling out later is cheaper than paying moorage for even a short time. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Mickey, > > > > > > With boat ownership, if one lacks certain things, yes, one had better be very rich. The first thing I would say is a must is a solid set of practical skills. You need not be the award winning handyman of your town, but someone has to consider you a handy-man or you better multiply all costs by four. Secondly, a skill for either creative solutions to problems, or curiosity and skillful imitation is needed. > > > > > > I would have trouble seeing the NEED to spending $80,000 on a boat I build. I would have to be thinking of Monel, lots of big purchased brass ports, and a production mast to start, because if I am paying $80,000, I want a top-of-the line shell and stick to start on. I would sooner give up the full-blown integrated instrument system, nav, autohelm, fancy teak&holly interior, and have a solid hull that will never rust, ever. (I am not saying no instruments at all -- radar in heavily foggy areas is a must, but the rest, have inexpensive versions, GPS, depth gauge, wind vane, and wind-vane self-steering.) I imagine the interior being varnished 1/4" fir plywood, because, for new coverings, it is reasonably inexpensive, and OK to look at. 20 sheets of fir at $25/sheet is only $500 and will go a very long way to making a classic looking interior. > > > > > > But that is a dream. Realistically, Brent has been talking about $16,000 in steel, with creative scrounging. If one is no good at creative scrounging it seems the first unexpected thing that comes up at sea, that one has not shipped a spare for, is a voyage-ending problem. Those with more creativity, and frankly, a good junk box, rich in fasteners, plugs and fittings, can solve a lot of problems either inexpensively, or temporarily in an emergency situation. > > > > > > The problem is, at thousands of dollars a year to keep a boat in a marina, there are a lot of people who have fallen out of love with their boats, and have been trying to sell them, and had no luck, and now they just want rid of the thing before the next fee payment is due. Some very nice looking boats, and occasionally some very good boats can be had for much less than $80,000 on the second hand market. > > > > > > By all means if one has $80,000 feel free, but it is not needed, not in my opinion. There are too many options, too many other ways to get sailing. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: mickeyolaf@ > > > Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 05:24:19 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All I was saying is u have to have lots of uncommitted cash to build a boat. > > > > > > There are people here who have frugally finished their SW 36's who have said their boats cost $80,000.00. > > > > > > That's $3333 a month over two years. $1666/m over four. $1666 a month of after tax $'s is a lot of money. > > > > > > Anybody who after paying their bills still has $1666 a month left over is rich as far as I am concerned. > > > > > > You can make it $833 a month for 8 years but still a big commitment of monthly income. I don't have $833 left over every month. If I did my wife would eventually find out and I would have $8.33 left over. > > > > > > > > > > > > So to build a boat u have to be wealthy, have a lot cash in the bank or a great income that's not already spent. In my case I worked overtime but now my back is sore. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think lack of $ is the main reason so many home built boat projects wallow in dust and why so many talk about building and never do. > > > > > > > > > > > > I know now that my boat will take 10 years. Why? Because it seems it's predetermined for me that as soon as I have non-committed $'s available for the boat that the transmission in my truck will go or I will need a new furnace. > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent, I'm not bitching. Just facing the facts of the costs of building. We all envy your frugality. But I want teak bulkheads, an aluminum mast, a water filter and a furnace. > > > > > > > > > > > > Men all have trouble taking direction. That why none of us read them until we can't get something to work. If I worked in a BBQ manufacturing plant I would always put a couple of extra screws and bolts in the box on purpose. Just for those guys who don't read the directions. They'd be scratching their heads bald trying to figure out what those extras fastenings were for. > > > > > > > > > > > > We all take different routes to get to the same end. If we didn't we'd still be hunting with spears. I will finish in spite of my stainless steel rigging. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. I bought a new stainless Norsesman 5/16 terminal on Saturday for $10. Now that is scrounging as far as I am concerned. I may sleep with it tonight or wear it around my neck to keep committed. > > > > > > > > > > > > "If u are rich and money is no object build a boat". > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could never have afforded the boat I have, whether I bought it, or hired others to build it. So I did the work myself, and was sailing for $6,000, in my 31. > > > > > > > Anyone can get a boat for drastically less than buying one, as long as you avoid paying others to work on it and do most of the work yourself. > > > > > > > The cost is porportionate to how much you do yourself and how much you pay others to do. > > > > > > > It's also porportionate to how much new stuff you use, and how much you scrounge. > > > > > > > Most builders have checked out the used boat market, and having concluded that only works if you are simply able to accept any boat. If you want a good boat, then often the only way to get what you want is to build it yourself. There is a lot of crap for sale on the used boat market , but it is mostly crap. > > > > > > > A friend told people they could get out cruising for cheap, "IF" they used used sails, galv rigging , scrounged materials, etc etc. Then people would go out , hire people to do everything , line the boat inside and out with teak, buy new aluminium masts and rigs with new stainless rigging, buy new sails , etc etc, then bitch about the fact that it was not cheap. > > > > > > > If all else fails, follow the directions. Skip the directions and any problems you have are of your own making. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mickeyolaf" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. If u are rich and money is no object buy a boat. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. If u are rich and money is no object build a boat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "To be honest I am struggling with the cost to build vs. buying a good used boat. Maybe I will end up doing both, eventually." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > | 24015|24011|2010-09-21 17:59:41|h|Re: Solar Powered Candles|I bought a string of garden lights from crappy tire that has it's own little solar panel, which I put outside and ran the lights inside, worked well except that the lights sparkled on and off in succession which gave the cabin this weird under water feel to it. Also before I had batteries and power on the boat I had a hanging paper lantern solar light which worked well for reading if I hung it above me at night. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Smilin Tom, on Cortes Island, told me of a neat use for those solar powered garden lights. You put them in front of a port , or under a skylight in day time, then put them upside down on your table at night as electric candles, eliminating any draw on your battery. A bit dim for reading, but some use them for reading and they are getting brighter. The amber ones are much easier on the eyes, the white ones make far better anchor lights. Unfortunately, they don't always say on the box , which they are. > However, as anchor lights are sometimes hidden behind rigging, a couple of extra ones are not a bad idea. > They keep getting cheaper and cheaper. > | 24016|23987|2010-09-21 18:00:58|john dean|snatch blocks|Hello Haidan You made lots of very nice blocks but I did not see a snatch bock that you could open up. Also did you use half inch bread boards for the rollers. Did you find any thicker like one inch material and did you find a way to machine groves in the plastic or are groves just not necessary. Thanks, John --- On Tue, 9/21/10, h wrote: > From: h > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: snatch blocks > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2010, 5:30 PM > I have pictures of the blocks I made, > "haidan's boat" in photos section somewhere around the > fiftieth photo. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > "john" wrote: > > > > I have found some nice photos of brent blocks. Can > anyone direct me to photos of brent snatch blocks, thanks, > john > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! > Groups Links > > >     origamiboats-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > > | 24017|23914|2010-09-21 19:19:50|Ben Okopnik|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 09:01:44PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > If, after cruising a bit, you decide that looking at teak, etc , is > worth giving up years of cruising, you can always add it later, as > with many "Improvements." It's also worth considering - depending on where you're planning to cruise - whether that teak would be significantly cheaper where you're going, rather than where you are, which might get you cruising much sooner. I knew people that had their teak decks done in Grenada (sadly, not really an option anymore) for about 1/20th of the Stateside price. Nowadays, I understand that Thailand is the place for amazing wood stuff. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24018|24018|2010-09-22 11:47:57|SHANE ROTHWELL|Snatch Blocks|Just bought a thick nylon chopping block that'd be perfect for sheives at the SuperStore in Nanannannimo 1" thick x 12" x 12". I think it was $12.-, so no need to lamiate/bolt/whatever for shieves     Posted by: "john dean" johndean61840@...   johndean61840 Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:00 pm (PDT) Hello Haidan You made lots of very nice blocks but I did not see a snatch bock that you could open up. Also did you use half inch bread boards for the rollers. Did you find any thicker like one inch material and did you find a way to machine groves in the plastic or are groves just not necessary. Thanks, John --- On Tue, 9/21/10, h wrote: > From: h > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: snatch blocks > To: origamiboats@ yahoogroups. com > Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2010, 5:30 PM > I have pictures of the blocks I made, > "haidan's boat" in photos section somewhere around the > fiftieth photo. > > --- In origamiboats@ yahoogroups. com, > "john" wrote: > > > > I have found some nice photos of brent blocks. Can > anyone direct me to photos of brent snatch blocks, thanks, > john > > > > > > | 24019|23987|2010-09-22 13:42:11|Carl Anderson|Re: snatch blocks|From what I know Brent does not have a design for a snatch block. The one I have (and will probably get a couple more) was made by Garhauer. Their stuff is on the lower cost end of the scale and this block seems to be pretty good. just a nickles worth, Carl sv-mom.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24020|23987|2010-09-22 14:04:25|Mark Hamill|Re: snatch blocks|Back many years I made some DIY snatch blocks for mooring that used a swinging arm that hooked into the lower part of the block (the pivot point was the bolt hold the sheave axle) and were held in place by a wing nut with a small hole in the wing for a retaining string which i never used--so far they have worked well. I made the sheave out of thick white plastic and the cage out of mild steel welded and then galvanized. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Anderson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] snatch blocks From what I know Brent does not have a design for a snatch block. The one I have (and will probably get a couple more) was made by Garhauer. Their stuff is on the lower cost end of the scale and this block seems to be pretty good. just a nickles worth, Carl sv-mom.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24021|23987|2010-09-22 14:11:09|Doug Jackson|Re: snatch blocks|Do you have a drawing or some photos you could share? Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, September 22, 2010 1:04:44 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] snatch blocks Back many years I made some DIY snatch blocks for mooring that used a swinging arm that hooked into the lower part of the block (the pivot point was the bolt hold the sheave axle) and were held in place by a wing nut with a small hole in the wing for a retaining string which i never used--so far they have worked well. I made the sheave out of thick white plastic and the cage out of mild steel welded and then galvanized. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Anderson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] snatch blocks From what I know Brent does not have a design for a snatch block. The one I have (and will probably get a couple more) was made by Garhauer. Their stuff is on the lower cost end of the scale and this block seems to be pretty good. just a nickles worth, Carl sv-mom.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24022|23987|2010-09-22 15:40:08|h|Re: snatch blocks|I used 3/4" chopping block for all the sheaves, you can get it in all sorts of thicknesses I imagine. Industrial paint and plastic in Courtenay only had 3/4 and 1/2 inch so I when for 3/4 as I use all 1/2 line and didn't want to have any unnecessary chafe. Ah yes I guess snatch block typically open up, I guess you could make ones out of two cheeks, run a bolt through the centre hole and the sheave and put a carabiner through a second hole at the top of the cheeks so you can take it out to put lines through, just like those old school snatch blocks you find in used boating stores, with independently swiveling cheeks. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, john dean wrote: > > Hello Haidan > > You made lots of very nice blocks but I did not see a snatch bock that you could open up. Also did you use half inch bread boards for the rollers. Did you find any thicker like one inch material and did you find a way to machine groves in the plastic or are groves just not necessary. > > Thanks, John > > --- On Tue, 9/21/10, h wrote: > > > From: h > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: snatch blocks > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2010, 5:30 PM > > I have pictures of the blocks I made, > > "haidan's boat" in photos section somewhere around the > > fiftieth photo. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > "john" wrote: > > > > > > I have found some nice photos of brent blocks. Can > > anyone direct me to photos of brent snatch blocks, thanks, > > john > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! > > Groups Links > > > > > >     origamiboats-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > | 24023|23987|2010-09-22 16:04:10|rhko47|Re: snatch blocks|I haven't tried it, but a hockey puck is *very* hard rubber, 1" thick, 2-7/8" diameter, cheap, and already round (no need to cut it out from a sheet). It might make a good sheave. The trick would be getting the hole precisely in the center. Some sort of non-rusting bearing or bushing might be in order. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, john dean wrote: > > Hello Haidan > > You made lots of very nice blocks but I did not see a snatch bock that you could open up. Also did you use half inch bread boards for the rollers. Did you find any thicker like one inch material and did you find a way to machine groves in the plastic or are groves just not necessary. > > Thanks, John > > --- On Tue, 9/21/10, h wrote: > > > From: h > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: snatch blocks > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2010, 5:30 PM > > I have pictures of the blocks I made, > > "haidan's boat" in photos section somewhere around the > > fiftieth photo. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > "john" wrote: > > > > > > I have found some nice photos of brent blocks. Can > > anyone direct me to photos of brent snatch blocks, thanks, > > john > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! > > Groups Links > > > > > >     origamiboats-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > | 24024|23987|2010-09-22 16:39:02|Mark Hamill|Re: snatch blocks|many people have said of my drawings "I have never seen more unlife like stick men" or "What the hell is that supposed to be??"or "Is your drawing hand broken?" (Quite hurtful really--sniff) I will have to go to the boat and drag one out and I will measure it and take a photo. I have really put some major weight on them so they seem to be good. I put the sheaves on a drill and used a sharpened (U shaped) bit of metal held in a vice grip to cut the groove. ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Jackson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] snatch blocks Do you have a drawing or some photos you could share? Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, September 22, 2010 1:04:44 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] snatch blocks Back many years I made some DIY snatch blocks for mooring that used a swinging arm that hooked into the lower part of the block (the pivot point was the bolt hold the sheave axle) and were held in place by a wing nut with a small hole in the wing for a retaining string which i never used--so far they have worked well. I made the sheave out of thick white plastic and the cage out of mild steel welded and then galvanized. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Anderson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] snatch blocks From what I know Brent does not have a design for a snatch block. The one I have (and will probably get a couple more) was made by Garhauer. Their stuff is on the lower cost end of the scale and this block seems to be pretty good. just a nickles worth, Carl sv-mom.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24025|23987|2010-09-22 17:30:47|Doug Jackson|Re: snatch blocks|:) I look forward to your photos. I'll try to remember to not make fun of them. A shameless opportunity to brag; but we have our submarine in Popular Science this month. When they called they asked if I had any photos of it in the water that I could send them. So I sent them a bunch. They called back within minutes and asked if we could put it back in the water so they could have a photographer take some pictures. :) Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, September 22, 2010 3:15:45 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] snatch blocks many people have said of my drawings "I have never seen more unlife like stick men" or "What the hell is that supposed to be??"or "Is your drawing hand broken?" (Quite hurtful really--sniff) I will have to go to the boat and drag one out and I will measure it and take a photo. I have really put some major weight on them so they seem to be good. I put the sheaves on a drill and used a sharpened (U shaped) bit of metal held in a vice grip to cut the groove. ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Jackson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] snatch blocks Do you have a drawing or some photos you could share? Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, September 22, 2010 1:04:44 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] snatch blocks Back many years I made some DIY snatch blocks for mooring that used a swinging arm that hooked into the lower part of the block (the pivot point was the bolt hold the sheave axle) and were held in place by a wing nut with a small hole in the wing for a retaining string which i never used--so far they have worked well. I made the sheave out of thick white plastic and the cage out of mild steel welded and then galvanized. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Anderson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] snatch blocks From what I know Brent does not have a design for a snatch block. The one I have (and will probably get a couple more) was made by Garhauer. Their stuff is on the lower cost end of the scale and this block seems to be pretty good. just a nickles worth, Carl sv-mom.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24026|23987|2010-09-22 18:28:00|h|Re: snatch blocks|I think drilling the hole and cutting the groove might be a bit hard with hockey pucks. By the way the method I used to cut the groove was to put 2 or 3 sheave on a bolt tighten them together and put the bolt into a chuck on a wood lathe, I also drilled a small hole in the center of the bolt head to fit into the tail stock spindle. I found I could only do a few at a time before something would go haywire, but it was kinda an older crappy lathe, I imagine one could use a drill and a rasp to grind the groove pretty well too. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "rhko47" wrote: > > I haven't tried it, but a hockey puck is *very* hard rubber, 1" thick, 2-7/8" diameter, cheap, and already round (no need to cut it out from a sheet). It might make a good sheave. The trick would be getting the hole precisely in the center. Some sort of non-rusting bearing or bushing might be in order. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, john dean wrote: > > > > Hello Haidan > > > > You made lots of very nice blocks but I did not see a snatch bock that you could open up. Also did you use half inch bread boards for the rollers. Did you find any thicker like one inch material and did you find a way to machine groves in the plastic or are groves just not necessary. > > > > Thanks, John > > > > --- On Tue, 9/21/10, h wrote: > > > > > From: h > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: snatch blocks > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2010, 5:30 PM > > > I have pictures of the blocks I made, > > > "haidan's boat" in photos section somewhere around the > > > fiftieth photo. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > > "john" wrote: > > > > > > > > I have found some nice photos of brent blocks. Can > > > anyone direct me to photos of brent snatch blocks, thanks, > > > john > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@! > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > >     origamiboats-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > > | 24027|23987|2010-09-22 20:51:01|john dean|Re: snatch blocks|Thanks for the nice replys. I checked on Amazon it seems to me a Brent Snatch Block might be a standard block with extended cheeks, a hole for the shackle drilled through the cheeks and then the cheeks cut apart for the snatch function, sound ok john dean --- On Wed, 9/22/10, h wrote: > From: h > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: snatch blocks > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 6:27 PM > I think drilling the hole and cutting > the groove might be a bit hard with hockey pucks. > By the way the method I used to cut the groove was to put 2 > or 3 sheave on a bolt tighten them together and put the bolt > into a chuck on a wood lathe, I also drilled a small hole in > the center of the bolt head to fit into the tail stock > spindle. I found I could only do a few at a time before > something would go haywire, but it was kinda an older crappy > lathe, I imagine one could use a drill and a rasp to grind > the groove pretty well too. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > "rhko47" wrote: > > > > I haven't tried it, but a hockey puck is *very* hard > rubber, 1" thick, 2-7/8" diameter, cheap, and already round > (no need to cut it out from a sheet).  It might make a > good sheave.  The trick would be getting the hole > precisely in the center.  Some sort of non-rusting > bearing  or bushing might be in order. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > john dean wrote: > > > > > > Hello Haidan > > > > > > You made lots of very nice blocks but I did not > see a snatch bock that you could open up. Also did you use > half inch bread boards for the rollers. Did you find any > thicker like one inch material and did you find a way to > machine groves in the plastic or are groves just not > necessary. > > > > > > Thanks, John > > > > > > --- On Tue, 9/21/10, h wrote: > > > > > > > From: h > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: snatch blocks > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2010, 5:30 PM > > > > I have pictures of the blocks I made, > > > > "haidan's boat" in photos section somewhere > around the > > > > fiftieth photo. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > > > "john" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I have found some nice photos of brent > blocks. Can > > > > anyone direct me to photos of brent snatch > blocks, thanks, > > > > john > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! > > > > Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > >     origamiboats-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! > Groups Links > > >     origamiboats-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > > | 24028|23914|2010-09-22 21:01:00|scott|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|lol, its not the trim tab part that messes with my mind. :) its the windvane and gearing part with controls for changing course and or using a tiller pilot... scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 02:30:02PM -0000, scott wrote: > > > > To be honest I haven't quite wrapped > > my head around a true understanding of windvanes that would allow me > > to picture in my head how it all works with the linkages and such... I > > suppose when I turn to actually doing that project I will have to > > knuckle down and figure it out. Especially if I want to build one. > > The principle is easy: stick your hand in moving water, edge-on to the > flow, then turn it perpendicular to the flow. If the water is flowing > reasonably fast, your hand will be forced toward one side. That's a > trimtab. In effect, you're exchanging a couple of ounces of rotational > force for X pounds of lateral force on the thing the tab is attached to; > it's a mechanical amplifier driven by water flow. When it's pivoted from > its forward edge, the force will be opposite of the direction in which > the tab turns. > > > I figure between your book and some of these references on the web I > > should be able to figure it out. :) hopefully > > I've tried designing one of my own in the past. It's not _that_ horribly > complicated, but there are definitely quirks which you'll only learn > about by going through many rounds of design and testing. Frankly, I'd > rather go with a well-tested one these days. My next one is going to be > a Brentvane. :) > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > | 24029|23914|2010-09-22 23:19:10|Ben Okopnik|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 01:00:49AM -0000, scott wrote: > lol, > its not the trim tab part that messes with my mind. :) Whoops. Me and my assumptions. :) > its the > windvane and gearing part with controls for changing course and or > using a tiller pilot... Not any harder: the windvane is set on a given course by (e.g.) steering that course and setting the vane to point dead into the wind on that heading. If the boat comes off that heading, then the vane (being hinged at the bottom) folds down in one direction or the other, which drives [1] the trim-tab. As to changing course, it's usually just a friction lock of some sort. Disengage, rotate the vane into desired position, re-engage. Done. [1] There's a number of methods for doing this, but all of them convert that linear motion into a rotary one. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24030|23914|2010-09-23 08:23:14|scott|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|I did a while back and it came out within a couple hundred for totally replacing the existing rig as it is now. I actually looked at the price of buying a whole spool of the dyneema dux and the fittings. The fittings for my current rig aren't cheap. I guess if I went to galvanized and brent style rigging that it would be much much cheaper than what I currently have. the thing that I really liked about the dyneema over existing is that reports from people that have gone to it is that their boats perform better due to a stiffer rig and loosing all that weight aloft. The dyneema is about 15% of the weight of a standard stainless rig. So I would probably lose about 60 to 70 lbs aloft. which would be the same as adding about 700 lbs of lead to the keel with less overall weight to the boat. I haven't sailed on a boat rigged with it much less before and after to compare the boat with both styles of rig. So it is all hearsay. however it isn't a new material.. just new to rigging on sailboats in the last 6 or 7 years. The commercial guys have been using this stuff like crazy for a while and they love it for weight, price, strength and endurance in their applications. My opinion is that it and similar products will be the standard rigging of the future. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > Scott: Dyneema--Before thinking about it for another second price it out. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24031|23914|2010-09-23 15:25:06|h|trim tab windvane selfsteering|The two links with the bolt bridging them allow the tiller to move while still holding the tab on an opposing course which will turn the rudder to the proper course. You adjust the ratio of windvane power to trim tab power by adjusting the length (leverage) ratio of the two linkages. So with this system you have to learn how to trim your sails in various conditions and points of sail to give the boat a consistent amount of weather helm that the steering gear is set to fighting against. I'm still fiddling with mine to make it work better, I figure I've made it as friction free as it's going to get now I just have to adjust the length of the windvane link. I just replaced the cloth vane with some coroplast sign material it's stiff and light and stands up to a bit of sun, but I wonder if it'll tear through the screw+washers I've got holding it to the frame, I figured I needed a bigger vane to speed up course correction time, and figured I could use the existing frame if I could find some material that was stiff enough to extend past. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > > lol, > its not the trim tab part that messes with my mind. :) its the windvane and gearing part with controls for changing course and or using a tiller pilot... > scott > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 02:30:02PM -0000, scott wrote: > > > > > > To be honest I haven't quite wrapped > > > my head around a true understanding of windvanes that would allow me > > > to picture in my head how it all works with the linkages and such... I > > > suppose when I turn to actually doing that project I will have to > > > knuckle down and figure it out. Especially if I want to build one. > > > > The principle is easy: stick your hand in moving water, edge-on to the > > flow, then turn it perpendicular to the flow. If the water is flowing > > reasonably fast, your hand will be forced toward one side. That's a > > trimtab. In effect, you're exchanging a couple of ounces of rotational > > force for X pounds of lateral force on the thing the tab is attached to; > > it's a mechanical amplifier driven by water flow. When it's pivoted from > > its forward edge, the force will be opposite of the direction in which > > the tab turns. > > > > > I figure between your book and some of these references on the web I > > > should be able to figure it out. :) hopefully > > > > I've tried designing one of my own in the past. It's not _that_ horribly > > complicated, but there are definitely quirks which you'll only learn > > about by going through many rounds of design and testing. Frankly, I'd > > rather go with a well-tested one these days. My next one is going to be > > a Brentvane. :) > > > > > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > | 24032|23914|2010-09-23 23:49:16|brentswain38|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|Give us feedback on how it all works out after you have tried it for a while --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > > I did a while back and it came out within a couple hundred for totally replacing the existing rig as it is now. I actually looked at the price of buying a whole spool of the dyneema dux and the fittings. The fittings for my current rig aren't cheap. I guess if I went to galvanized and brent style rigging that it would be much much cheaper than what I currently have. > > the thing that I really liked about the dyneema over existing is that reports from people that have gone to it is that their boats perform better due to a stiffer rig and loosing all that weight aloft. The dyneema is about 15% of the weight of a standard stainless rig. So I would probably lose about 60 to 70 lbs aloft. which would be the same as adding about 700 lbs of lead to the keel with less overall weight to the boat. > > I haven't sailed on a boat rigged with it much less before and after to compare the boat with both styles of rig. So it is all hearsay. however it isn't a new material.. just new to rigging on sailboats in the last 6 or 7 years. The commercial guys have been using this stuff like crazy for a while and they love it for weight, price, strength and endurance in their applications. > > My opinion is that it and similar products will be the standard rigging of the future. > scott > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > Scott: Dyneema--Before thinking about it for another second price it out. > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 24033|23914|2010-09-24 00:00:41|brentswain38|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|With the attachment point for the vane or autopilot being slightly behind the rudder axis, as the trimtab steers the trailing edge of the rudder over , the trim tab moves back toward the centre of the rudder, eventualy lining up with the rudder again, dampening feedback and giving you negative feed back instead of positive feedback , preventing oversteering. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > > lol, > its not the trim tab part that messes with my mind. :) its the windvane and gearing part with controls for changing course and or using a tiller pilot... > scott > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 02:30:02PM -0000, scott wrote: > > > > > > To be honest I haven't quite wrapped > > > my head around a true understanding of windvanes that would allow me > > > to picture in my head how it all works with the linkages and such... I > > > suppose when I turn to actually doing that project I will have to > > > knuckle down and figure it out. Especially if I want to build one. > > > > The principle is easy: stick your hand in moving water, edge-on to the > > flow, then turn it perpendicular to the flow. If the water is flowing > > reasonably fast, your hand will be forced toward one side. That's a > > trimtab. In effect, you're exchanging a couple of ounces of rotational > > force for X pounds of lateral force on the thing the tab is attached to; > > it's a mechanical amplifier driven by water flow. When it's pivoted from > > its forward edge, the force will be opposite of the direction in which > > the tab turns. > > > > > I figure between your book and some of these references on the web I > > > should be able to figure it out. :) hopefully > > > > I've tried designing one of my own in the past. It's not _that_ horribly > > complicated, but there are definitely quirks which you'll only learn > > about by going through many rounds of design and testing. Frankly, I'd > > rather go with a well-tested one these days. My next one is going to be > > a Brentvane. :) > > > > > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > | 24034|23914|2010-09-24 08:21:22|scott|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|If I do this it will probably be in a year or so unless I have issues with the current rig that force me to do so sooner. I will be sure to document the process and share the results here. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Give us feedback on how it all works out after you have tried it for a while > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > > > > I did a while back and it came out within a couple hundred for totally replacing the existing rig as it is now. I actually looked at the price of buying a whole spool of the dyneema dux and the fittings. The fittings for my current rig aren't cheap. I guess if I went to galvanized and brent style rigging that it would be much much cheaper than what I currently have. > > > > the thing that I really liked about the dyneema over existing is that reports from people that have gone to it is that their boats perform better due to a stiffer rig and loosing all that weight aloft. The dyneema is about 15% of the weight of a standard stainless rig. So I would probably lose about 60 to 70 lbs aloft. which would be the same as adding about 700 lbs of lead to the keel with less overall weight to the boat. > > > > I haven't sailed on a boat rigged with it much less before and after to compare the boat with both styles of rig. So it is all hearsay. however it isn't a new material.. just new to rigging on sailboats in the last 6 or 7 years. The commercial guys have been using this stuff like crazy for a while and they love it for weight, price, strength and endurance in their applications. > > > > My opinion is that it and similar products will be the standard rigging of the future. > > scott | 24035|23914|2010-09-24 13:52:59|h|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > " "With the attachment point for the vane or autopilot being slightly behind the rudder axis, " you mean the bolt that bridges the two linkages right? I've got the vane axis slightly behind the rudder's trailing edge.| 24036|23914|2010-09-24 16:46:00|brentswain38|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|Yes. With that arrangement, you can put the trim tab over ten degrees, using the wind vane, and when you swing the rudder, you can watch the trim tab realign itself with the rudder. That is what prevents over steering. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > " > > "With the attachment point for the vane or autopilot being slightly behind the rudder axis, " > > you mean the bolt that bridges the two linkages right? I've got the vane axis slightly behind the rudder's trailing edge. > | 24037|23914|2010-09-24 17:23:30|Paul Wilson|Mast climbing|The next time you are climbing the mast of your boat, think of these guys. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhtgsAXmz7U& Cheers, Paul| 24038|23914|2010-09-24 18:21:11|martin demers|Re: Mast climbing|I hope at least their lunch is paid! lol... To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: opusnz@... Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:24:25 +1200 Subject: [origamiboats] Mast climbing The next time you are climbing the mast of your boat, think of these guys. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhtgsAXmz7U& Cheers, Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24039|23987|2010-09-24 18:47:46|Mark Hamill|Re: snatch blocks|I have to go out of town so I won't be able to provide pictures and drawings of ;my snatch blocks til after Oct. 4. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24040|23987|2010-09-24 22:24:42|Doug Jackson|Re: snatch blocks|No rush. Thanks. I'd like to start a collection of build it yourself boat stuff on my website. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 5:47:37 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: snatch blocks I have to go out of town so I won't be able to provide pictures and drawings of ;my snatch blocks til after Oct. 4. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24041|23914|2010-09-25 16:07:07|Gary H. Lucas|Re: Mast climbing|I used to do ball field lighting. Back in the days of 1500 watt incandesents there were lots of bulbs to replace frequently. I once spent an entire week on top of 85 poles. I have a picture of me standing on the very top of a pole above all the lights and crossarms. I also used to set microwave dishes and towers with a crane. You get used to the height and past a certain point it no longer matters how high you are. I worked with a crew that did the kind of tower work in the video. Crazy bunch they were! They used to have one guy climb the tower and place a block at the top. Then they'd rig a 1/2" steel cable to their winch truck, and everybody else rode the winch line to the top. Coming down they would freefall the winch line, and if the guy on the winch slammed on the brakes to hard at the bottom you got sling-shotted back up quite a ways. Gary H. Lucas From: Paul Wilson Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:24 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Mast climbing The next time you are climbing the mast of your boat, think of these guys. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhtgsAXmz7U& Cheers, Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24042|23914|2010-09-25 16:21:17|James Pronk|Re: Mast climbing|I've been up and down a couple of masts, but watching that video made me feel sick. I am not one who enjoys heights unless I'm in a plane or a very sturdy building. I will climb a mast, but only if I am tied into something. James --- On Sat, 9/25/10, Gary H. Lucas wrote: From: Gary H. Lucas Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Mast climbing To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Saturday, September 25, 2010, 3:38 PM   I used to do ball field lighting. Back in the days of 1500 watt incandesents there were lots of bulbs to replace frequently. I once spent an entire week on top of 85 poles. I have a picture of me standing on the very top of a pole above all the lights and crossarms. I also used to set microwave dishes and towers with a crane. You get used to the height and past a certain point it no longer matters how high you are. I worked with a crew that did the kind of tower work in the video. Crazy bunch they were! They used to have one guy climb the tower and place a block at the top. Then they'd rig a 1/2" steel cable to their winch truck, and everybody else rode the winch line to the top. Coming down they would freefall the winch line, and if the guy on the winch slammed on the brakes to hard at the bottom you got sling-shotted back up quite a ways. Gary H. Lucas From: Paul Wilson Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:24 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Mast climbing The next time you are climbing the mast of your boat, think of these guys. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhtgsAXmz7U& Cheers, Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24043|23914|2010-09-25 16:49:02|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: (was Mast ) climbing|This is not us, but me and Raisa, my love, did the "La Terressina" last fall. The websites are in Spanish. At the bridge in the first foto, which *is* in the air, there is an outfall you climd on the outside of. Think of cliffhanger the movie, exactly the same. Honestly. There is 800 m of vertical freefall (at about 2.3 km altitude). It was beautiful, exhausting and terrifying. Took us 5 hours, about the same as my first marathon. Best thing I have ever done, even better (barely) than when I took a school yacht out for the first time as a captain at the river crouch in essex, england. I am honoured and humbled to be in love with a woman who likes all these activities as much as I do, and deeply in love, 8 years after we met. The Vie Ferrata routes have metal spokes and a safety wire, otherwise it´s mountain climbing. I nthe cliffhanger movie, the vertical ladder is what these routes are like. It´s absolutely wonderful, beyond description. We are lucky that for us it´s a 30 min drive and up you go. And yes, we use a guide, until our skills and experienec are upto goin on our own (this is one of the most difficult routes in Spain). http://ferratas.barrancos.org/teresina.htm http://www.pirineos3000.com/servlet/DescripcionRutas/MONTANA--Ferrata+La+Teresina--IDASCENSION--455.html http://ferratas.barrancos.org/Teresina1.jpg http://ferratas.barrancos.org/Teresina1.jpg 10:35h. Pedro supera la zona de grapas realizando un flanqueo a la izq. para acceder al sector donde se encuentra el * * Hope you enjoy ! http://www.pirineos3000.com/fotos/rutas/800x600/455_24.jpg On 25.9.2010 22:21, James Pronk wrote: > > I've been up and down a couple of masts, but watching that video made > me feel sick. I am not one who enjoys heights unless I'm in a plane or > a very sturdy building. > I will climb a mast, but only if I am tied into something. > James > > --- On Sat, 9/25/10, Gary H. Lucas > wrote: > > From: Gary H. Lucas > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Mast climbing > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Saturday, September 25, 2010, 3:38 PM > > > > I used to do ball field lighting. Back in the days of 1500 watt > incandesents there were lots of bulbs to replace frequently. I once > spent an entire week on top of 85 poles. I have a picture of me > standing on the very top of a pole above all the lights and crossarms. > I also used to set microwave dishes and towers with a crane. You get > used to the height and past a certain point it no longer matters how > high you are. I worked with a crew that did the kind of tower work in > the video. Crazy bunch they were! They used to have one guy climb the > tower and place a block at the top. Then they'd rig a 1/2" steel cable > to their winch truck, and everybody else rode the winch line to the > top. Coming down they would freefall the winch line, and if the guy on > the winch slammed on the brakes to hard at the bottom you got > sling-shotted back up quite a ways. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Paul Wilson > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:24 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [origamiboats] Mast climbing > > The next time you are climbing the mast of your boat, think of these guys. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhtgsAXmz7U& > > > Cheers, Paul > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24044|24044|2010-09-25 17:39:03|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|craddle adjustable legs|on my boat craddle there are four adjustable legs made of threaded rod. The thread use on those rods is suppose to be called "mecanic thread" or square thread. does anyone knows where one could find those rods, I have to change one. I tried in bolt suppliers whitout sucess. Thanks, Martin.| 24045|24044|2010-09-25 17:43:52|Paul Wilson|Re: craddle adjustable legs|Try searching under "Acme Thread". That is a common square thread used in vises and high load applications. On 9/26/2010 10:38 AM, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > on my boat craddle there are four adjustable legs made of threaded > rod. The thread use on those rods is suppose to be called "mecanic > thread" or square thread. does anyone knows where one could find those > rods, I have to change one. > I tried in bolt suppliers whitout sucess. > > Thanks, Martin. > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3157 - Release Date: 09/25/10 06:16:00 > | 24046|24044|2010-09-25 19:00:35|David Frantz|Re: craddle adjustable legs|Try the following: McMaster-Carr MSC Enco Travers I'm hoping you are in the USA with those suppliers. You will likely need more specific thread information to order the right stock. There are standard threads for just about everything, the likely hood is that the stock is using a standard thread. So one possibility is to grab a machinist to deduce the exact specs. As to alternative sources, look online for manufactures of lead screws. David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Sep 25, 2010, at 5:38 PM, mdemers2005@... wrote: > on my boat craddle there are four adjustable legs made of threaded rod. The thread use on those rods is suppose to be called "mecanic thread" or square thread. does anyone knows where one could find those rods, I have to change one. > I tried in bolt suppliers whitout sucess. > > Thanks, Martin. > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24047|23988|2010-09-25 19:14:27|jhess314|Re: aluminum trimaran?|Hello all, Thanks to all who responded to my interest in an aluminum origami trimaran, and I apologize for taking so long to respond. Paul: your suggestion to search for "aluminium" as well as "aluminum" was most helpful. You'd think that the English-speaking world could agree on standardized spellings, but then we can't agree on what side of the road to drive on either! LOL Denis: thanks for your offer for information on large aluminum trimaran projects. The problem I'm facing is what is the smallest size trimaran that can be built in aluminum? My understanding is that as you scale an aluminum boat smaller and smaller, at some point the skin gets too thin to weld, and isn't stiff enough to bridge between stringers without oil-canning. Etienne: I enjoyed reading through the Yago project. It helped me to better understand how the origami process works. And like you I'm interested in using a free-standing mast, perhaps with a soft wingsail. Have you worked on designing such a cruising trimaran? Brent: My understanding is the part of the strength of your origami design is the egg-shaped curves. The hulls of trimarans and catamarans are typically much narrower than monohulls. What is the largest length to breadth ratio that you feel is safe in an aluminum origami haul – say for a hull that is 38' long? 4:1? 5:1? 6:1? 8:1? Do you know of anyone who designs aluminum origami trimaran hulls? My understanding is that waterline length to breadth ratio of many trimarans is at least 8:1. Does anyone know how adversely the sailing ability of a trimaran would be affected if that ratio were dropped to 6:1 or 5:1? I'm not interested in a fast tri, but I would like to be able to carry a larger payload than most trimarans' specifications allow for. Again, thanks to all for your comments? John| 24048|24044|2010-09-25 19:48:25|martin demers|Re: craddle adjustable legs|David, I am in Montreal, Can. Martin. CC: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: websterindustro@... Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:59:50 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] craddle adjustable legs Try the following: McMaster-Carr MSC Enco Travers I'm hoping you are in the USA with those suppliers. You will likely need more specific thread information to order the right stock. There are standard threads for just about everything, the likely hood is that the stock is using a standard thread. So one possibility is to grab a machinist to deduce the exact specs. As to alternative sources, look online for manufactures of lead screws. David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Sep 25, 2010, at 5:38 PM, mdemers2005@... wrote: > on my boat craddle there are four adjustable legs made of threaded rod. The thread use on those rods is suppose to be called "mecanic thread" or square thread. does anyone knows where one could find those rods, I have to change one. > I tried in bolt suppliers whitout sucess. > > Thanks, Martin. > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24049|23988|2010-09-26 15:05:27|rhko47|was Re: aluminum trimaran? now what side of the road to drive on|I have a theory that in seafaring nations, the driver is on the right because the "steer-board" (steering oar) was on the right to suit right-handed steersmen. In continental lands, the dominant influence was the chariot, in which the driver had to be on the left so the archer or spear-thrower (right-handed) could be on the right. As the railroad was developed in Britain, the engineer is on the right side of the locomotive. (But the British railway gauge is based on the width of the Roman chariot.) I think this explains the positions of the operators and hence the side of the road driven on, but what I can't figure out is why the preferred passage at sea is port-to-port, i.e., driving on the right, not the left as in seafaring countries. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > Hello all, > > Thanks to all who responded to my interest in an aluminum origami trimaran, and I apologize for taking so long to respond. > > Paul: your suggestion to search for "aluminium" as well as "aluminum" was most helpful. You'd think that the English-speaking world could agree on standardized spellings, but then we can't agree on what side of the road to drive on either! LOL > > Denis: thanks for your offer for information on large aluminum trimaran projects. The problem I'm facing is what is the smallest size trimaran that can be built in aluminum? My understanding is that as you scale an aluminum boat smaller and smaller, at some point the skin gets too thin to weld, and isn't stiff enough to bridge between stringers without oil-canning. > > Etienne: I enjoyed reading through the Yago project. It helped me to better understand how the origami process works. And like you I'm interested in using a free-standing mast, perhaps with a soft wingsail. Have you worked on designing such a cruising trimaran? > > Brent: My understanding is the part of the strength of your origami design is the egg-shaped curves. The hulls of trimarans and catamarans are typically much narrower than monohulls. What is the largest length to breadth ratio that you feel is safe in an aluminum origami haul – say for a hull that is 38' long? 4:1? 5:1? 6:1? 8:1? Do you know of anyone who designs aluminum origami trimaran hulls? > > My understanding is that waterline length to breadth ratio of many trimarans is at least 8:1. Does anyone know how adversely the sailing ability of a trimaran would be affected if that ratio were dropped to 6:1 or 5:1? I'm not interested in a fast tri, but I would like to be able to carry a larger payload than most trimarans' specifications allow for. > > Again, thanks to all for your comments? > > John > | 24050|23914|2010-09-27 05:58:35|Wally Paine|Re: Mast climbing|Me too. (feeling sick I mean). In my late teens I took up rock climbing in order to cure myself of fear of heights. I had some great times and enjoyed it on the whole but it never really worked as a cure.   --- On Sat, 25/9/10, James Pronk wrote: From: James Pronk Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Mast climbing To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, 25 September, 2010, 21:21   I've been up and down a couple of masts, but watching that video made me feel sick. I am not one who enjoys heights unless I'm in a plane or a very sturdy building. I will climb a mast, but only if I am tied into something. James --- On Sat, 9/25/10, Gary H. Lucas wrote: From: Gary H. Lucas Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Mast climbing To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Saturday, September 25, 2010, 3:38 PM   I used to do ball field lighting. Back in the days of 1500 watt incandesents there were lots of bulbs to replace frequently. I once spent an entire week on top of 85 poles. I have a picture of me standing on the very top of a pole above all the lights and crossarms. I also used to set microwave dishes and towers with a crane. You get used to the height and past a certain point it no longer matters how high you are. I worked with a crew that did the kind of tower work in the video. Crazy bunch they were! They used to have one guy climb the tower and place a block at the top. Then they'd rig a 1/2" steel cable to their winch truck, and everybody else rode the winch line to the top. Coming down they would freefall the winch line, and if the guy on the winch slammed on the brakes to hard at the bottom you got sling-shotted back up quite a ways. Gary H. Lucas From: Paul Wilson Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:24 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Mast climbing The next time you are climbing the mast of your boat, think of these guys. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhtgsAXmz7U& Cheers, Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24051|23914|2010-09-27 10:08:06|Ben Okopnik|Re: Mast climbing|On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 09:58:25AM +0000, Wally Paine wrote: > Me too. (feeling sick I mean). In my late teens I took up rock > climbing in order to cure myself of fear of heights. I had some great > times and enjoyed it on the whole but it never really worked as a > cure.   When I was 8 years old, I had a really serious fear of heights - so when a few of my friends went off to explore a new building that was going up not too far from where we lived, I went with them to do something about that. This was in Moscow, and the Russians don't (or didn't, at that time) put up fences around construction sites: they figure that if you're stupid enough to go wandering about in one without knowing your business, you deserve to be killed by a falling brick - and everybody will laugh at you besides. We climbed all over that thing, but I made a point of finding a place on the top (12th) floor where I could go right to the edge - an unfinished balcony - and I sat there with my legs dangling until the fear was gone... because I told myself that I'd either walk away from there free of it, or I'd throw myself off. I figured that if I let fear stop me, I'd be pretty worthless as a human being (yeah, that was a bit too idealistic, but what can you expect from an 8-year-old. :) It took a while; the other guys had to come find me because it was getting dark. Did it work? Well, later on, when I was in the US military, I joined a parachuting club, just for fun (7 jumps, only one of them static and 1 HALO.) I also volunteered for a cold weather survival course, which included quite a lot of mountaineering (it was done in Washington State). After I got out, I had a business for a time where my partner and I would take yuppies to the backwoods and teach them basic survival; I taught the "rough terrain" section of the course, which included safe rappeling (and even a bit of canyoneering, whenever the streams had enough water in them - this was Southern California.) But I gotta admit, watching that video made me queasy too. :) I might be a bit too apt to see myself in the other guys shoes, and him swinging his head like that, all those sharp changes of perspective from close up to *way* the hell out, were really dizzy-making. If I'm climbing, my attention is highly focused on what I'm doing; I think my neck muscles were trying to swing "my" head back every time he looked away. That was disorienting. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24052|23914|2010-09-27 10:51:10|Matt Malone|Re: Mast climbing|Yes, it made me queasy too. The changes in view were problematic, yes, but his ONE safety line, poorly clipped on a bolt, him leaning back against the safety line, hold on with maybe one hand.... I use a safety harness at work and have 3 clips on it, all on very short lines, just enough for me to lean out, look around and inspect stuff. When I intend to take one hand off to do something, all three clips are attached. When I am climbing it is at least 1 attached. My first two boats were too small in the ballast for me to climb the mast. I hauled my youngest son (60 pounds at the time) in a bosun's chair to the top of the mast on the second boat to replace the broken topping lift block. He has been much higher on climbing walls and as far as I can tell has no fear of heights. If the boat is heavy enough to take me on the mast, I am installing steps. Matt > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: ben@... > Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:07:51 -0400 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Mast climbing > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 09:58:25AM +0000, Wally Paine wrote: > > Me too. (feeling sick I mean). In my late teens I took up rock > > climbing in order to cure myself of fear of heights. I had some great > > times and enjoyed it on the whole but it never really worked as a > > cure. > > When I was 8 years old, I had a really serious fear of heights - so when ... > But I gotta admit, watching that video made me queasy too. :) I might be > a bit too apt to see myself in the other guys shoes, and him swinging > his head like that, all those sharp changes of perspective from close up > to *way* the hell out, were really dizzy-making. If I'm climbing, my > attention is highly focused on what I'm doing; I think my neck muscles > were trying to swing "my" head back every time he looked away. That was > disorienting. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24053|23914|2010-09-27 15:26:37|aaron riis|foaming|I just foamed my '26 two days ago with a tiger foam 600 bd ft kit.  I was able to just cover everything with emphasis on the overhead deck and cabin.   The kit was my only option, living in a remote place, where I couldn't just call up the truck.   Wow it feels good to finally get that done.  a few mistakes, holes to fill either I will chop up the excess foam and make a paste with epoxy or something or use a spray can, altho I want it to be closed cell.   Also, what have people been painting the foam with? epoxy, polyurethane?  I have gallons of extra white enamel.   Aaron --- On Mon, 9/27/10, Matt Malone wrote: From: Matt Malone Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Mast climbing To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Monday, September 27, 2010, 7:51 AM   Yes, it made me queasy too. The changes in view were problematic, yes, but his ONE safety line, poorly clipped on a bolt, him leaning back against the safety line, hold on with maybe one hand.... I use a safety harness at work and have 3 clips on it, all on very short lines, just enough for me to lean out, look around and inspect stuff. When I intend to take one hand off to do something, all three clips are attached. When I am climbing it is at least 1 attached. My first two boats were too small in the ballast for me to climb the mast. I hauled my youngest son (60 pounds at the time) in a bosun's chair to the top of the mast on the second boat to replace the broken topping lift block. He has been much higher on climbing walls and as far as I can tell has no fear of heights. If the boat is heavy enough to take me on the mast, I am installing steps. Matt > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: ben@... > Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:07:51 -0400 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Mast climbing > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 09:58:25AM +0000, Wally Paine wrote: > > Me too. (feeling sick I mean). In my late teens I took up rock > > climbing in order to cure myself of fear of heights. I had some great > > times and enjoyed it on the whole but it never really worked as a > > cure. > > When I was 8 years old, I had a really serious fear of heights - so when ... > But I gotta admit, watching that video made me queasy too. :) I might be > a bit too apt to see myself in the other guys shoes, and him swinging > his head like that, all those sharp changes of perspective from close up > to *way* the hell out, were really dizzy-making. If I'm climbing, my > attention is highly focused on what I'm doing; I think my neck muscles > were trying to swing "my" head back every time he looked away. That was > disorienting. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24054|23914|2010-09-27 15:29:27|brentswain38|Re: Mast climbing|Steps, tho rarely used, are one of the best things you can add to a mast. On my first trip south, in my early 20's I had to climb the mast single handed at sea, to replace halyards. As soon as I got to New Zealand I put steps on. I have always avoided the type which foul halyards , prefering the ones in my book and Moitessiers book. When I use thm, I use a safety harness tied to the rope tail of a halyard with a rolling hitch, I slide the hitch up as I climb. If I fall the hitch tightens around the rope,stopping the fall in the first three feet. As they started a bit of rot in my wooden mast I replaces the lower ones with SS boiler tube ratlines. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Yes, it made me queasy too. The changes in view were problematic, yes, but his ONE safety line, poorly clipped on a bolt, him leaning back against the safety line, hold on with maybe one hand.... > > I use a safety harness at work and have 3 clips on it, all on very short lines, just enough for me to lean out, look around and inspect stuff. When I intend to take one hand off to do something, all three clips are attached. When I am climbing it is at least 1 attached. > > My first two boats were too small in the ballast for me to climb the mast. I hauled my youngest son (60 pounds at the time) in a bosun's chair to the top of the mast on the second boat to replace the broken topping lift block. He has been much higher on climbing walls and as far as I can tell has no fear of heights. If the boat is heavy enough to take me on the mast, I am installing steps. > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: ben@... > > Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:07:51 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Mast climbing > > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 09:58:25AM +0000, Wally Paine wrote: > > > Me too. (feeling sick I mean). In my late teens I took up rock > > > climbing in order to cure myself of fear of heights. I had some great > > > times and enjoyed it on the whole but it never really worked as a > > > cure. > > > > When I was 8 years old, I had a really serious fear of heights - so when > ... > > > But I gotta admit, watching that video made me queasy too. :) I might be > > a bit too apt to see myself in the other guys shoes, and him swinging > > his head like that, all those sharp changes of perspective from close up > > to *way* the hell out, were really dizzy-making. If I'm climbing, my > > attention is highly focused on what I'm doing; I think my neck muscles > > were trying to swing "my" head back every time he looked away. That was > > disorienting. > > > > > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24055|23914|2010-09-27 15:33:40|brentswain38|Re: foaming|When Island Breeze caught fire in Frisco bay , the foam under cheap latex paint refused to burn, despite intense heat. Cheap latex paint seems the best fire retardent for foam. You can find it free, as much as you want, at recycling depots. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, aaron riis wrote: > > > I just foamed my '26 two days ago with a tiger foam 600 bd ft kit.  I was able to just cover everything with emphasis on the overhead deck and cabin.   The kit was my only option, living in a remote place, where I couldn't just call up the truck.   Wow it feels good to finally get that done.  a few mistakes, holes to fill either I will chop up the excess foam and make a paste with epoxy or something or use a spray can, altho I want it to be closed cell.   Also, what have people been painting the foam with? epoxy, polyurethane?  I have gallons of extra white enamel.   Aaron > --- On Mon, 9/27/10, Matt Malone wrote: > > > From: Matt Malone > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Mast climbing > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Monday, September 27, 2010, 7:51 AM > > >   > > > > > > Yes, it made me queasy too. The changes in view were problematic, yes, but his ONE safety line, poorly clipped on a bolt, him leaning back against the safety line, hold on with maybe one hand.... > > I use a safety harness at work and have 3 clips on it, all on very short lines, just enough for me to lean out, look around and inspect stuff. When I intend to take one hand off to do something, all three clips are attached. When I am climbing it is at least 1 attached. > > My first two boats were too small in the ballast for me to climb the mast. I hauled my youngest son (60 pounds at the time) in a bosun's chair to the top of the mast on the second boat to replace the broken topping lift block. He has been much higher on climbing walls and as far as I can tell has no fear of heights. If the boat is heavy enough to take me on the mast, I am installing steps. > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: ben@... > > Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:07:51 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Mast climbing > > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 09:58:25AM +0000, Wally Paine wrote: > > > Me too. (feeling sick I mean). In my late teens I took up rock > > > climbing in order to cure myself of fear of heights. I had some great > > > times and enjoyed it on the whole but it never really worked as a > > > cure. > > > > When I was 8 years old, I had a really serious fear of heights - so when > ... > > > But I gotta admit, watching that video made me queasy too. :) I might be > > a bit too apt to see myself in the other guys shoes, and him swinging > > his head like that, all those sharp changes of perspective from close up > > to *way* the hell out, were really dizzy-making. If I'm climbing, my > > attention is highly focused on what I'm doing; I think my neck muscles > > were trying to swing "my" head back every time he looked away. That was > > disorienting. > > > > > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24056|23914|2010-09-27 15:52:18|Paul Cotter|Re: foaming|Those foam kits are great and I can get them at a pretty reasonable price. There are a few very small kits (~12 bf) available for touch up, but perhaps not easy to get if you are remote. I'm guessing you weren't wasting a lot of foam if you were able to cover it with one kit. What were you spraying on to? Epoxy tar? Primer? On Sep 27, 2010, at 11:26 AM, aaron riis wrote: > > I just foamed my '26 two days ago with a tiger foam 600 bd ft kit. > I was able to just cover everything with emphasis on the overhead > deck and cabin. The kit was my only option, living in a remote > place, where I couldn't just call up the truck. Wow it feels good > to finally get that done. a few mistakes, holes to fill either I > will chop up the excess foam and make a paste with epoxy or > something or use a spray can, altho I want it to be closed cell. > Also, what have people been painting the foam with? epoxy, > polyurethane? I have gallons of extra white enamel. Aaron > --- On Mon, 9/27/10, Matt Malone wrote: > > From: Matt Malone > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Mast climbing > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Monday, September 27, 2010, 7:51 AM > > > > Yes, it made me queasy too. The changes in view were problematic, > yes, but his ONE safety line, poorly clipped on a bolt, him leaning > back against the safety line, hold on with maybe one hand.... > > I use a safety harness at work and have 3 clips on it, all on very > short lines, just enough for me to lean out, look around and > inspect stuff. When I intend to take one hand off to do something, > all three clips are attached. When I am climbing it is at least 1 > attached. > > My first two boats were too small in the ballast for me to climb > the mast. I hauled my youngest son (60 pounds at the time) in a > bosun's chair to the top of the mast on the second boat to replace > the broken topping lift block. He has been much higher on climbing > walls and as far as I can tell has no fear of heights. If the boat > is heavy enough to take me on the mast, I am installing steps. > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: ben@... > > Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:07:51 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Mast climbing > > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 09:58:25AM +0000, Wally Paine wrote: > > > Me too. (feeling sick I mean). In my late teens I took up rock > > > climbing in order to cure myself of fear of heights. I had some > great > > > times and enjoyed it on the whole but it never really worked as a > > > cure. > > > > When I was 8 years old, I had a really serious fear of heights - > so when > ... > > > But I gotta admit, watching that video made me queasy too. :) I > might be > > a bit too apt to see myself in the other guys shoes, and him > swinging > > his head like that, all those sharp changes of perspective from > close up > > to *way* the hell out, were really dizzy-making. If I'm climbing, my > > attention is highly focused on what I'm doing; I think my neck > muscles > > were trying to swing "my" head back every time he looked away. > That was > > disorienting. > > > > > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24057|23914|2010-09-28 10:28:19|ANDREW AIREY|Mast climbing|Anyone for a tabernacle and counterweighted mast? Have you got steps and handholds on your mast like he had.I've no head for heights although I'm 6'7" and used to hate putting the plastic sidewalls on the top floor of double decker marquees because you were working partly over the edge with no support.The pic that puts me off is that one of the skyscraper erection gang sitting on a girder eating their sandwiches. cheers Andy Airey| 24058|23914|2010-09-28 11:17:31|Carl Anderson|Re: Mast climbing|Brent, Thanks for your thoughts on welding steps to the mast. We absolutely love having our steps. Kate gets a big kick out of sitting on the spreaders since we also have a nice place to sit/stand welded on them. I got used to climbing radio towers starting at 16 when I first got my ham license. Last radio tower I owned was 72 feet high and I climbed that thing more times than I can remember. Carl sv-mom.com On 9/27/2010 12:29 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > Steps, tho rarely used, are one of the best things you can add to a > mast. On my first trip south, in my early 20's I had to climb the mast > single handed at sea, to replace halyards. As soon as I got to New > Zealand I put steps on. > I have always avoided the type which foul halyards , prefering the > ones in my book and Moitessiers book. > When I use thm, I use a safety harness tied to the rope tail of a > halyard with a rolling hitch, I slide the hitch up as I climb. If I > fall the hitch tightens around the rope,stopping the fall in the first > three feet. > As they started a bit of rot in my wooden mast I replaces the lower > ones with SS boiler tube ratlines. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24059|23914|2010-09-28 11:44:10|Ben Okopnik|Re: Mast climbing|On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 02:28:17PM +0000, ANDREW AIREY wrote: > > Anyone for a tabernacle and counterweighted mast? It's not quite that simple. I need to go up and do a bunch of work up at the top of my mast, but have been putting it off; I'm probably going to be up there for one or two hours, and I'm not looking forward to it. Now, I _could_ lower the stick - it's in a tabernacle - but that doesn't get me much by itself: the masthead would be about 20' behind my stern, and I'd have to get out to it somehow. So, I either need to find some place to tie up where I can work with that unwieldy arrangement *and* also do all the work of lowering and raising the mast - all around, a day-long project or so - or just grit my teeth and spend the time up there. I'm definitely going to climb; the extra setup time and the hassle surrounding it are just not worth it to me. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24060|23914|2010-09-28 15:43:57|James Pronk|Re: Mast climbing|About 4 years ago I was on a friends boat on Georgen Bay and we were climbing the mast and jumping in off the spreaders. A guy about 50 or 60 years old in a boat anchored next to us climbed to the top of his mast, stood on the top for about 30 seconds. He then did a beautiful dive with out hardly a splash on entery. After that he climbed into his boat and yelled across "Top that one". James [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24061|24061|2010-09-28 22:54:58|h|WiFi antenna|Just wondering what you folks are using to pick up internet from the boat. I'd prefer building something myself, it would seem to me that any antenna alone beyond a 9db gain would be too narrow a beam to use on a boat? I figure in order to really make it count ones got to boost the signal, anyone built some sort of WiFi amplifiers before or can recommend components to put one together? Or have people found direction antennas usable on board at anchor?| 24062|24061|2010-09-28 23:37:21|Ben Okopnik|Re: WiFi antenna|On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 02:54:45AM -0000, h wrote: > Just wondering what you folks are using to pick up internet from the > boat. I'd prefer building something myself, it would seem to me that > any antenna alone beyond a 9db gain would be too narrow a beam to use > on a boat? I figure in order to really make it count ones got to boost > the signal, anyone built some sort of WiFi amplifiers before or can > recommend components to put one together? Or have people found > direction antennas usable on board at anchor? Directional antennas are pretty useless on board; you need something that's close to an omni, which means low-to-reasonable gain. I've done a lot of research on this, and have ended up with a system that I really, really like; in fact, as soon as my broadband contract with Verizon runs out, I'm dropping that and sticking to pure WiFi; in going up the US East coast, I've had WiFi contact pretty much everywhere. The setup I ended up with is something a friend of mine, Skip, recommended. It's a high-output (1 watt) WiFi system that's coupled to a high-gain radio antenna with a couple of degrees of look-down, so that your pickup pattern is focused where it needs to be - including while you're sailing. Mine gives me every AP within several miles - and it's only that "short" because I haven't yet installed it at the masthead (yep, it's part of that big masthead project.) Skip made a connection at 17 miles once, while sailing, that was good enough to sustain a conversation over a VOIP phone - and has made more distant connections while at anchor. Of course, he's got a 75' mast... One really nice feature is that you connect to it via Ethernet cable. USB restricts you to something like 16'; Ethernet is 100 *meters*. Oh, and the whole thing is waterproof - nice bit of design all around. It's not the cheapest thing in the world: ~$250 from IslandTimePC (http://islandtimepc.com/marine_wifi.html). Skip's setup is shown at http://islandtimepc.com/id17.html . I still have my el-cheapo but quite effective USB-based Alfa antenna, too (about $35), but these days, it's just a backup. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24063|23914|2010-09-28 23:39:01|David Frantz|Re: Mast climbing|I was at work tonight and one of the guys had a video going of a guy climbing this massive communications tower. Apparently it is as high as the Sears Tower. Mind you this was just a video but I actually got light headed and dissy. What is notable here is the casual way he clipped on at the top of the mast. 1600 feet in the air and he is standing on a ledge with his heels hanging over the edge. In comparison I was working on my shed this weekend, on a step ladder and took each move gingerly. I'm not sure is I could ever have the composure this guy had at that hieght. David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Sep 28, 2010, at 3:43 PM, James Pronk wrote: > > > > > > > > > About 4 years ago I was on a friends boat on Georgen Bay and we were climbing the mast and jumping in off the spreaders. A guy about 50 or 60 years old in a boat anchored next to us climbed to the top of his mast, stood on the top for about 30 seconds. He then did a beautiful dive with out hardly a splash on entery. > After that he climbed into his boat and yelled across "Top that one". > James > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24064|24061|2010-09-28 23:51:35|David Frantz|Re: WiFi antenna|Nice! Bookmarked that link. The price really isn't that bad. I do worry about cat 5 cable and its reliability on a boat. In any event the idea is pretty slick, I could see this being very successful with motor home owners and similar travelers. David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Sep 28, 2010, at 11:37 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 02:54:45AM -0000, h wrote: >> Just wondering what you folks are using to pick up internet from the >> boat. I'd prefer building something myself, it would seem to me that >> any antenna alone beyond a 9db gain would be too narrow a beam to use >> on a boat? I figure in order to really make it count ones got to boost >> the signal, anyone built some sort of WiFi amplifiers before or can >> recommend components to put one together? Or have people found >> direction antennas usable on board at anchor? > > Directional antennas are pretty useless on board; you need something > that's close to an omni, which means low-to-reasonable gain. I've done a > lot of research on this, and have ended up with a system that I really, > really like; in fact, as soon as my broadband contract with Verizon runs > out, I'm dropping that and sticking to pure WiFi; in going up the US > East coast, I've had WiFi contact pretty much everywhere. > > The setup I ended up with is something a friend of mine, Skip, > recommended. It's a high-output (1 watt) WiFi system that's coupled to a > high-gain radio antenna with a couple of degrees of look-down, so that > your pickup pattern is focused where it needs to be - including while > you're sailing. Mine gives me every AP within several miles - and it's > only that "short" because I haven't yet installed it at the masthead > (yep, it's part of that big masthead project.) Skip made a connection at > 17 miles once, while sailing, that was good enough to sustain a > conversation over a VOIP phone - and has made more distant connections > while at anchor. Of course, he's got a 75' mast... > > One really nice feature is that you connect to it via Ethernet cable. > USB restricts you to something like 16'; Ethernet is 100 *meters*. Oh, > and the whole thing is waterproof - nice bit of design all around. > > It's not the cheapest thing in the world: ~$250 from IslandTimePC > (http://islandtimepc.com/marine_wifi.html). Skip's setup is shown at > http://islandtimepc.com/id17.html . I still have my el-cheapo but quite > effective USB-based Alfa antenna, too (about $35), but these days, it's > just a backup. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24065|24061|2010-09-29 00:10:44|Paul Wilson|Re: WiFi antenna|When I was in Grenada last year, all the boats in the anchorage were using omni antennas which I agree is the way to go. I can't name the specific brands but they were about $50 with an amp built-in and got ranges of about half a mile. Here is one type but there were rubber ones as well. http://www.radiolabs.com/products/antennas/2.4gig/2.4-mobile7.php I had no experience with this so can't confirm it but it was claimed that the bigger higher gain antennas like Ben shows worked great but tended to swamp out and block the other users. I knew one cruiser that had both types and only used the big antenna when needed so he didn't upset the other users. Cheers, Paul On 9/29/2010 4:37 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 02:54:45AM -0000, h wrote: > > Just wondering what you folks are using to pick up internet from the > > boat. I'd prefer building something myself, it would seem to me that > > any antenna alone beyond a 9db gain would be too narrow a beam to use > > on a boat? I figure in order to really make it count ones got to boost > > the signal, anyone built some sort of WiFi amplifiers before or can > > recommend components to put one together? Or have people found > > direction antennas usable on board at anchor? > > Directional antennas are pretty useless on board; you need something > that's close to an omni, which means low-to-reasonable gain. I've done a > lot of research on this, and have ended up with a system that I really, > really like; in fact, as soon as my broadband contract with Verizon runs > out, I'm dropping that and sticking to pure WiFi; in going up the US > East coast, I've had WiFi contact pretty much everywhere. > > The setup I ended up with is something a friend of mine, Skip, > recommended. It's a high-output (1 watt) WiFi system that's coupled to a > high-gain radio antenna with a couple of degrees of look-down, so that > your pickup pattern is focused where it needs to be - including while > you're sailing. Mine gives me every AP within several miles - and it's > only that "short" because I haven't yet installed it at the masthead > (yep, it's part of that big masthead project.) Skip made a connection at > 17 miles once, while sailing, that was good enough to sustain a > conversation over a VOIP phone - and has made more distant connections > while at anchor. Of course, he's got a 75' mast... > > One really nice feature is that you connect to it via Ethernet cable. > USB restricts you to something like 16'; Ethernet is 100 *meters*. Oh, > and the whole thing is waterproof - nice bit of design all around. > > It's not the cheapest thing in the world: ~$250 from IslandTimePC > (http://islandtimepc.com/marine_wifi.html). Skip's setup is shown at > http://islandtimepc.com/id17.html . I still have my el-cheapo but quite > effective USB-based Alfa antenna, too (about $35), but these days, it's > just a backup. > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3165 - Release Date: 09/29/10 06:41:00 > | 24066|24061|2010-09-29 01:15:08|Ben Okopnik|Re: WiFi antenna|On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 11:50:44PM -0400, David Frantz wrote: > Nice! Bookmarked that link. > > The price really isn't that bad. I do worry about cat 5 cable and > its reliability on a boat. Forgot to mention: the guy includes "outside"-grade cat5 cable with the setup. :) Slick, hard jacket on it. > In any event the idea is pretty slick, I > could see this being very successful with motor home owners and > similar travelers. Well, the guy is a sailor himself - so he's got a good clue as to what's needed. And you're right: the price isn't bad. In fact, it's as good as you can get for a serious professional setup. If you search around for a "Ubiquiti Bullet", which is what this thing is called, people are using them as fixed access points for things like city-wide networks installed by city governments. I was reading in their forum where some city in Texas was using over 400 of these things at once, for just that purpose, and didn't have any problems with them. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24067|24061|2010-09-29 01:35:06|Ben Okopnik|Re: WiFi antenna|On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 05:11:02PM +1300, Paul Wilson wrote: > When I was in Grenada last year, all the boats in the anchorage were > using omni antennas which I agree is the way to go. I can't name the > specific brands but they were about $50 with an amp built-in and got > ranges of about half a mile. Here is one type but there were rubber ones > as well. > > http://www.radiolabs.com/products/antennas/2.4gig/2.4-mobile7.php > > I had no experience with this so can't confirm it but it was claimed > that the bigger higher gain antennas like Ben shows worked great but > tended to swamp out and block the other users. I knew one cruiser that > had both types and only used the big antenna when needed so he didn't > upset the other users. WiFi doesn't really work that way; you can't "swamp" somebody else's signal unless you really know what you're doing and have some specialized equipment ("specialized" as in "very expensive", up in the $40k-200k range.) Where people do run into problems is in setting up their own access points - i.e., bringing their WiFi signal down to a router that they then use to broadcast locally. This is convenient if you have several laptops on board... but it'll get you into a pile of trouble if your router's IP range overlaps the local ISPs range. Then, people trying to connect to the ISP will be connecting to you instead; really bad news. That's when people will start heading for your boat with chainsaws and torches... but it's got nothing to do with your receiver antenna. You could do exactly the same thing with a cheap little WiFi dongle. Most people, when it comes to technology that they don't understand, perform all sorts of voodoo rituals usually centered around avoiding things - like not stepping on a crack in the asphalt, 'cause it'll break your mother's back and it'll be ALL YOUR FAULT. :) Guessing, following rituals, and praying may have some kind of an effect in other contexts, but it doesn't work with technology. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24068|24061|2010-09-29 10:10:57|scott|Re: WiFi antenna|Ben, Take a look at this.. very similar for less than half the price http://www.data-alliance.net/-strse-141/Ubiquiti-Bullet2HP-Wireless-%22in/Detail.bok scott > you're sailing. Mine gives me every AP within several miles - and it's > only that "short" because I haven't yet installed it at the masthead > (yep, it's part of that big masthead project.) Skip made a connection at > 17 miles once, while sailing, that was good enough to sustain a > conversation over a VOIP phone - and has made more distant connections > while at anchor. Of course, he's got a 75' mast... > > One really nice feature is that you connect to it via Ethernet cable. > USB restricts you to something like 16'; Ethernet is 100 *meters*. Oh, > and the whole thing is waterproof - nice bit of design all around. > > It's not the cheapest thing in the world: ~$250 from IslandTimePC > (http://islandtimepc.com/marine_wifi.html). Skip's setup is shown at > http://islandtimepc.com/id17.html . I still have my el-cheapo but quite > effective USB-based Alfa antenna, too (about $35), but these days, it's > just a backup. | 24069|24044|2010-09-29 10:38:51|will jones|Re: craddle adjustable legs|Check with Brownell boat stands @ http://www.boatstands.com/ I've built a couple of trailers for fixed keel sailboats and have ordered just the head assembly. You get the threaded rod, swivel head, plywood pad and adjusting screw. You can get the rod in different lengths. Great folks to deal with. My wife claims I have issues. I agree while looking at her. Cyclone 13 SanJuan 7.7 Morgan 33T IOR, Hull 24 Bloomington, IN --- On Sat, 9/25/10, Paul Wilson wrote: > From: Paul Wilson > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] craddle adjustable legs > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Saturday, September 25, 2010, 5:44 PM >   Try searching under "Acme > Thread". That is a common square thread used > in vises and high load applications. > > On 9/26/2010 10:38 AM, mdemers2005@... > wrote: > > > > on my boat craddle there are four adjustable legs made > of threaded > > rod. The thread use on those rods is suppose to be > called "mecanic > > thread" or square thread. does anyone knows where one > could find those > > rods, I have to change one. > > I tried in bolt suppliers whitout sucess. > > > > Thanks, Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3157 - > Release Date: 09/25/10 06:16:00 > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! > Groups Links > > >     origamiboats-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > > | 24070|24061|2010-09-29 10:57:12|Ben Okopnik|Re: WiFi antenna|On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 01:56:02PM -0000, scott wrote: > Ben, > Take a look at this.. very similar for less than half the price > http://www.data-alliance.net/-strse-141/Ubiquiti-Bullet2HP-Wireless-%22in/Detail.bok Scott, you know me - of course I shopped around on the Net before buying it. The one from IslandTimePC comes with an 8dBi antenna that was specifically chosen for this exact application (and that's the big trick here: Bob Stewart is a radio buff and knows his antennas), a PoE injector plus the power cable for it, a mast mount, a "water lock" cable fitting, an "outside" Ethernet cable, a patch cable, and even some self-welding tape for the final weatherproofing. By the time you put that together, I suspect you're going to be right up in that $239 range. On top of that, though, Bob's got a lot of knowledge about installing these things on boats, and provides free tech support to his customers (I didn't need it - that's word of mouth from Skip and another friend who bought one.) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24071|24061|2010-09-29 11:30:32|Carl Anderson|Re: WiFi antenna|I use the 1/2 watt Alfa unit with a 9dbi gain omni antenna. \Works fairly well just sitting on the pilothouse rooftop. Limited by the USB cable (and this unit requires 2 of them). Using it right now to poach a connection here from the boatyard. Having something run over ethernet would be better for the length (heigth above the water). I have to put in a good word for Island Time PC as well. I have one of their marine computers in the boat and it has worked without any problems for 2 years. Does everything they said it would, fast & LOTS of ports to connect into! Carl sv-mom.com On 9/28/2010 8:37 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 02:54:45AM -0000, h wrote: > > Just wondering what you folks are using to pick up internet from the > > boat. I'd prefer building something myself, it would seem to me that > > any antenna alone beyond a 9db gain would be too narrow a beam to use > > on a boat? I figure in order to really make it count ones got to boost > > the signal, anyone built some sort of WiFi amplifiers before or can > > recommend components to put one together? Or have people found > > direction antennas usable on board at anchor? > > Directional antennas are pretty useless on board; you need something > that's close to an omni, which means low-to-reasonable gain. I've done a > lot of research on this, and have ended up with a system that I really, > really like; in fact, as soon as my broadband contract with Verizon runs > out, I'm dropping that and sticking to pure WiFi; in going up the US > East coast, I've had WiFi contact pretty much everywhere. > > The setup I ended up with is something a friend of mine, Skip, > recommended. It's a high-output (1 watt) WiFi system that's coupled to a > high-gain radio antenna with a couple of degrees of look-down, so that > your pickup pattern is focused where it needs to be - including while > you're sailing. Mine gives me every AP within several miles - and it's > only that "short" because I haven't yet installed it at the masthead > (yep, it's part of that big masthead project.) Skip made a connection at > 17 miles once, while sailing, that was good enough to sustain a > conversation over a VOIP phone - and has made more distant connections > while at anchor. Of course, he's got a 75' mast... > > One really nice feature is that you connect to it via Ethernet cable. > USB restricts you to something like 16'; Ethernet is 100 *meters*. Oh, > and the whole thing is waterproof - nice bit of design all around. > > It's not the cheapest thing in the world: ~$250 from IslandTimePC > (http://islandtimepc.com/marine_wifi.html). Skip's setup is shown at > http://islandtimepc.com/id17.html . I still have my el-cheapo but quite > effective USB-based Alfa antenna, too (about $35), but these days, it's > just a backup. > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24072|24061|2010-09-29 12:17:45|h|Re: WiFi antenna|Thanks a lot ben, the price doesn't look that bad once you start adding up all the parts. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 02:54:45AM -0000, h wrote: > > Just wondering what you folks are using to pick up internet from the > > boat. I'd prefer building something myself, it would seem to me that > > any antenna alone beyond a 9db gain would be too narrow a beam to use > > on a boat? I figure in order to really make it count ones got to boost > > the signal, anyone built some sort of WiFi amplifiers before or can > > recommend components to put one together? Or have people found > > direction antennas usable on board at anchor? > > Directional antennas are pretty useless on board; you need something > that's close to an omni, which means low-to-reasonable gain. I've done a > lot of research on this, and have ended up with a system that I really, > really like; in fact, as soon as my broadband contract with Verizon runs > out, I'm dropping that and sticking to pure WiFi; in going up the US > East coast, I've had WiFi contact pretty much everywhere. > > The setup I ended up with is something a friend of mine, Skip, > recommended. It's a high-output (1 watt) WiFi system that's coupled to a > high-gain radio antenna with a couple of degrees of look-down, so that > your pickup pattern is focused where it needs to be - including while > you're sailing. Mine gives me every AP within several miles - and it's > only that "short" because I haven't yet installed it at the masthead > (yep, it's part of that big masthead project.) Skip made a connection at > 17 miles once, while sailing, that was good enough to sustain a > conversation over a VOIP phone - and has made more distant connections > while at anchor. Of course, he's got a 75' mast... > > One really nice feature is that you connect to it via Ethernet cable. > USB restricts you to something like 16'; Ethernet is 100 *meters*. Oh, > and the whole thing is waterproof - nice bit of design all around. > > It's not the cheapest thing in the world: ~$250 from IslandTimePC > (http://islandtimepc.com/marine_wifi.html). Skip's setup is shown at > http://islandtimepc.com/id17.html . I still have my el-cheapo but quite > effective USB-based Alfa antenna, too (about $35), but these days, it's > just a backup. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > | 24073|24061|2010-09-29 13:18:24|Ben Okopnik|Re: WiFi antenna|On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 03:51:08PM -0000, h wrote: > > Thanks a lot ben, the price doesn't look that bad once you start adding up all the parts. My pleasure, Haidan. There are certain things aboard that Just Work, and I'm a *big* fan of that kind of stuff. Sometimes, it's taken me years and a pile of dollars to discover what those things are, and I like to share that knowledge with other sailors and maybe save them the time and the aggravation. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24074|24061|2010-09-29 15:42:37|scott|Re: WiFi antenna|I ordered the marine grade 8dbi antenna and the access point from my earlier link. I didn't get teh poe though as I wanted a dc to dc poe. I found one for 39 dollars from a company in Utah. http://www.tyconpower.com/products/POE.htm#DCDC I think I have spent about 150 to 160 including shipping so far. I have boxes of cat6 sitting around so am not to worried about that as well as several rolls of self sealing silicone tape.. I use the stuff all the time for some of the work I do. what kind of water lock cable? not sure i know what that is.. I have seen some IP20 to IP67 rated RJ45 fittings. I'm going to call this one of my R&D projects for the year. I order stuff like this and play with it 4 or 5 times a year and usually like about half of the products well enough to use with clients. I still trying to justify R&Ding one of the 12v car/boat computers... maybe I will start offering a complete line of built in boat computers and wireless solutions. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 01:56:02PM -0000, scott wrote: > > Ben, > > Take a look at this.. very similar for less than half the price > > http://www.data-alliance.net/-strse-141/Ubiquiti-Bullet2HP-Wireless-%22in/Detail.bok > > Scott, you know me - of course I shopped around on the Net before buying > it. The one from IslandTimePC comes with an 8dBi antenna that was > specifically chosen for this exact application (and that's the big trick > here: Bob Stewart is a radio buff and knows his antennas), a PoE > injector plus the power cable for it, a mast mount, a "water lock" cable > fitting, an "outside" Ethernet cable, a patch cable, and even some > self-welding tape for the final weatherproofing. By the time you put > that together, I suspect you're going to be right up in that $239 range. > > On top of that, though, Bob's got a lot of knowledge about installing > these things on boats, and provides free tech support to his customers > (I didn't need it - that's word of mouth from Skip and another friend > who bought one.) > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              443-250-7895      end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              443-250-7895      end_of_the_skype_highlighting http://okopnik.com > | 24075|24061|2010-09-29 16:06:15|Ben Okopnik|Re: WiFi antenna|On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 07:41:23PM -0000, scott wrote: > I ordered the marine grade 8dbi antenna and the access point from my earlier link. Did you look at that antenna's pattern, by any chance? A typical whip has an equally-distributed "donut" pattern, which means that a fair bit of its coverage (the top of the "donut") is wasted when you mount it on your mast. If it's designed with a few degrees of "look-down", you get more and better coverage. > I didn't get teh poe though as I wanted a dc to dc poe. I found one > for 39 dollars from a company in Utah. > http://www.tyconpower.com/products/POE.htm#DCDC The one that comes with my system runs on 9-24v. > I think I have spent about 150 to 160 including shipping so far. I > have boxes of cat6 sitting around so am not to worried about that as > well as several rolls of self sealing silicone tape.. I use the stuff > all the time for some of the work I do. Cool. I don't know if you'll still need a mount, and you might want to consider "outside"-rated cable: that cat6 (assuming it's the "inside" stuff) could chafe through pretty quick. For the patch cable, the usual stuff will work fine. > what kind of water lock cable? not sure i know what that is.. I have > seen some IP20 to IP67 rated RJ45 fittings. It's not a cable; it's a water-lock (kinda like an air-lock on a submarine.) Screws into the bottom of the bridge and makes a water-tight fit around the cable. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24076|23914|2010-09-29 17:32:28|brentswain38|Re: (was Mast ) climbing|If she is cruising any Spanish speaking boatbuilding websites , could she mention that my book is now avaiable in Spanish? Thanks --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > This is not us, but me and Raisa, my love, did the "La Terressina" last > fall. > The websites are in Spanish. > > At the bridge in the first foto, which *is* in the air, there is an > outfall you climd on the outside of. > Think of cliffhanger the movie, exactly the same. Honestly. > There is 800 m of vertical freefall (at about 2.3 km altitude). > It was beautiful, exhausting and terrifying. Took us 5 hours, about the > same as my first marathon. > Best thing I have ever done, even better (barely) than when I took a > school yacht out for the first time as a captain at the river crouch in > essex, england. > > I am honoured and humbled to be in love with a woman who likes all these > activities as much as I do, and deeply in love, 8 years after we met. > The Vie Ferrata routes have metal spokes and a safety wire, otherwise > it´s mountain climbing. > I nthe cliffhanger movie, the vertical ladder is what these routes are > like. It´s absolutely wonderful, beyond description. > We are lucky that for us it´s a 30 min drive and up you go. > And yes, we use a guide, until our skills and experienec are upto goin > on our own (this is one of the most difficult routes in Spain). > > http://ferratas.barrancos.org/teresina.htm > http://www.pirineos3000.com/servlet/DescripcionRutas/MONTANA--Ferrata+La+Teresina--IDASCENSION--455.html > http://ferratas.barrancos.org/Teresina1.jpg > > http://ferratas.barrancos.org/Teresina1.jpg > > > > > > 10:35h. Pedro supera la zona de grapas realizando un flanqueo a la izq. > para acceder al sector donde se encuentra el * * > > > Hope you enjoy ! > > http://www.pirineos3000.com/fotos/rutas/800x600/455_24.jpg > > On 25.9.2010 22:21, James Pronk wrote: > > > > I've been up and down a couple of masts, but watching that video made > > me feel sick. I am not one who enjoys heights unless I'm in a plane or > > a very sturdy building. > > I will climb a mast, but only if I am tied into something. > > James > > > > --- On Sat, 9/25/10, Gary H. Lucas > > wrote: > > > > From: Gary H. Lucas > > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Mast climbing > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Received: Saturday, September 25, 2010, 3:38 PM > > > > > > > > I used to do ball field lighting. Back in the days of 1500 watt > > incandesents there were lots of bulbs to replace frequently. I once > > spent an entire week on top of 85 poles. I have a picture of me > > standing on the very top of a pole above all the lights and crossarms. > > I also used to set microwave dishes and towers with a crane. You get > > used to the height and past a certain point it no longer matters how > > high you are. I worked with a crew that did the kind of tower work in > > the video. Crazy bunch they were! They used to have one guy climb the > > tower and place a block at the top. Then they'd rig a 1/2" steel cable > > to their winch truck, and everybody else rode the winch line to the > > top. Coming down they would freefall the winch line, and if the guy on > > the winch slammed on the brakes to hard at the bottom you got > > sling-shotted back up quite a ways. > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > From: Paul Wilson > > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:24 PM > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [origamiboats] Mast climbing > > > > The next time you are climbing the mast of your boat, think of these guys. > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhtgsAXmz7U& > > > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24077|24077|2010-09-29 17:48:03|Doug - SubmarineBoat.com|Plans for Anchors|Does anybody have plans for building anchors? Thanks Doug| 24078|24077|2010-09-29 19:17:34|Paul Wilson|Re: Plans for Anchors|I thought I had the dimensions of a Delta but can't seem to find them. The Bulwagga anchor would be very simple to build. I think you could easily build one that bolted together for storage below as an emergency spare or hurricane anchor. They get pretty good reviews but unfortunately won't go on a bow roller. http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/groups/historical/Bulwagga/dimensions.htm http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/new-gen-boat-anchors-explained.php Cheers, Paul On 9/30/2010 10:47 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > Does anybody have plans for building anchors? > > Thanks > Doug > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3166 - Release Date: 09/29/10 18:37:00 > | 24079|24079|2010-09-29 22:35:15|akenai|BS 36 Skeg Size|Brent I noticed in several photo's that the skeg appears to be alot wider at the bottom on the twin keel version. How is the shorter length determined? Aaron| 24080|24044|2010-09-30 09:56:46|Matt Malone|Re: craddle adjustable legs|Martin: This forum is just so great for finding tips on a lot of boat-related stuff on a budget. The posts have lead me to find this: Acme Nuts and Threaded Rod at Fastenal: http://www.fastenal.com/web/products.ex?N=999602447&Nty=0 http://www.fastenal.com/web/products.ex?N=0&Ntk=Search+All&Ntt=Acme+rod&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&Nty=1&searchBox=1 And Fastenal is all over Canada. I have to build a cradle, and this has found all the parts I cannot normally find at the scrap steel yard for pennies a pound. Matt > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: opusnz@... > Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 10:44:43 +1300 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] craddle adjustable legs > > Try searching under "Acme Thread". That is a common square thread used > in vises and high load applications. > > On 9/26/2010 10:38 AM, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > on my boat craddle there are four adjustable legs made of threaded > > rod. The thread use on those rods is suppose to be called "mecanic > > thread" or square thread. does anyone knows where one could find those > > rods, I have to change one. > > I tried in bolt suppliers whitout sucess. > > > > Thanks, Martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24081|24077|2010-09-30 10:35:15|Doug Jackson|Re: Plans for Anchors|Thanks for the ideas Paul. A bolt together Bulwagga will be perfect. Especially considering we need them in the 100+ pound size. Doug ArgonautJr.com ----- Original Message ---- From: Paul Wilson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, September 29, 2010 6:18:11 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Plans for Anchors I thought I had the dimensions of a Delta but can't seem to find them. The Bulwagga anchor would be very simple to build. I think you could easily build one that bolted together for storage below as an emergency spare or hurricane anchor. They get pretty good reviews but unfortunately won't go on a bow roller. http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/groups/historical/Bulwagga/dimensions.htm http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/new-gen-boat-anchors-explained.php Cheers, Paul On 9/30/2010 10:47 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > Does anybody have plans for building anchors? > > Thanks > Doug > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3166 - Release Date: 09/29/10 >18:37:00 > ------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links | 24082|24077|2010-09-30 10:52:42|Ben Okopnik|Re: Plans for Anchors|On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 07:29:50AM -0700, Doug Jackson wrote: > Thanks for the ideas Paul. A bolt together Bulwagga will be perfect. > Especially considering we need them in the 100+ pound size. I once knew a Cuban-American steelworker who built himself a 34' boat (steel, of course) and sailed down to the islands; he had also built himself a 150-lb and a 250-lb anchor, and used them as part of his ballast. Just before hurricane Luis, he used his mainsheet to winch these two hooks out of his bilge and laid them out, on 1/2" and 3/4" chain respectively. When a boat twice his size dragged into him during the hurricane (we were both watching our boats from the beach), he looked at it for a minute and said, with utter confidence: "it'll hold." As far as I'm concerned, that works better than any kind of insurance you can buy. :) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24083|24077|2010-09-30 14:33:33|h|Re: Plans for Anchors|If you're looking for holding power it might be better to try and build a rocna style anchor, maybe make the shank removable like those raya anchors. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 07:29:50AM -0700, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Thanks for the ideas Paul. A bolt together Bulwagga will be perfect. > > Especially considering we need them in the 100+ pound size. > > I once knew a Cuban-American steelworker who built himself a 34' boat > (steel, of course) and sailed down to the islands; he had also built > himself a 150-lb and a 250-lb anchor, and used them as part of his > ballast. Just before hurricane Luis, he used his mainsheet to winch > these two hooks out of his bilge and laid them out, on 1/2" and 3/4" > chain respectively. When a boat twice his size dragged into him during > the hurricane (we were both watching our boats from the beach), he > looked at it for a minute and said, with utter confidence: "it'll hold." > > As far as I'm concerned, that works better than any kind of insurance > you can buy. :) > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > | 24084|24077|2010-09-30 14:39:51|h|Re: Plans for Anchors|http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php/topic,2207.0.html theres a picture of what I mean with the shank, one could make one hell of big anchor as the fluke part doesn't have to be supper heavy with these spade style anchors, at least theres no lead in them, I like the rocna style better with the roll bar but the way they have the shank removable on these anchors would be easy to do and it'd allow you to store your 200 lbs anchor in the bilge without the shank getting in the way. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Thanks for the ideas Paul. A bolt together Bulwagga will be perfect. > Especially considering we need them in the 100+ pound size. > > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Paul Wilson > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wed, September 29, 2010 6:18:11 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Plans for Anchors > > I thought I had the dimensions of a Delta but can't seem to find them. > The Bulwagga anchor would be very simple to build. I think you could > easily build one that bolted together for storage below as an emergency > spare or hurricane anchor. They get pretty good reviews but > unfortunately won't go on a bow roller. > > http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/groups/historical/Bulwagga/dimensions.htm > > http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/new-gen-boat-anchors-explained.php > > Cheers, Paul > > On 9/30/2010 10:47 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > Does anybody have plans for building anchors? > > > > Thanks > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3166 - Release Date: 09/29/10 > >18:37:00 > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > | 24085|24044|2010-09-30 19:55:00|martin demers|Re: craddle adjustable legs|Thanks for all who answered me, I finally had my rod straightened by the machine shop for $30.00. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: m_j_malone@... Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:56:42 -0400 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] craddle adjustable legs Martin: This forum is just so great for finding tips on a lot of boat-related stuff on a budget. The posts have lead me to find this: Acme Nuts and Threaded Rod at Fastenal: http://www.fastenal.com/web/products.ex?N=999602447&Nty=0 http://www.fastenal.com/web/products.ex?N=0&Ntk=Search+All&Ntt=Acme+rod&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&Nty=1&searchBox=1 And Fastenal is all over Canada. I have to build a cradle, and this has found all the parts I cannot normally find at the scrap steel yard for pennies a pound. Matt > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: opusnz@... > Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 10:44:43 +1300 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] craddle adjustable legs > > Try searching under "Acme Thread". That is a common square thread used > in vises and high load applications. > > On 9/26/2010 10:38 AM, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > on my boat craddle there are four adjustable legs made of threaded > > rod. The thread use on those rods is suppose to be called "mecanic > > thread" or square thread. does anyone knows where one could find those > > rods, I have to change one. > > I tried in bolt suppliers whitout sucess. > > > > Thanks, Martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24086|23755|2010-09-30 21:43:06|wild_explorer|Re: Origamiboat modeling (3D, pattern, model)|Brent, could you take a look at this image please? http://groups.google.com/group/origamiboats/web/V_77_vs_27_12_sc_v9_14_____3.JPG The question I have: what hull shape might me better in terms of stability and directional stability? Any others concerns? Both hulls have similar speed characteristics. One is more "traditional" type another one more "origami" type.| 24087|24077|2010-09-30 23:29:00|Doug Jackson|Re: Plans for Anchors|Thanks. That one is going on the list too. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: h To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 1:14:36 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php/topic,2207.0.html theres a picture of what I mean with the shank, one could make one hell of big anchor as the fluke part doesn't have to be supper heavy with these spade style anchors, at least theres no lead in them, I like the rocna style better with the roll bar but the way they have the shank removable on these anchors would be easy to do and it'd allow you to store your 200 lbs anchor in the bilge without the shank getting in the way. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Thanks for the ideas Paul. A bolt together Bulwagga will be perfect. > Especially considering we need them in the 100+ pound size. > > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Paul Wilson > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wed, September 29, 2010 6:18:11 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Plans for Anchors > > I thought I had the dimensions of a Delta but can't seem to find them. > The Bulwagga anchor would be very simple to build. I think you could > easily build one that bolted together for storage below as an emergency > spare or hurricane anchor. They get pretty good reviews but > unfortunately won't go on a bow roller. > > http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/groups/historical/Bulwagga/dimensions.htm > > http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/new-gen-boat-anchors-explained.php > > Cheers, Paul > > On 9/30/2010 10:47 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > Does anybody have plans for building anchors? > > > > Thanks > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3166 - Release Date: 09/29/10 > >18:37:00 > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24088|24088|2010-10-01 11:05:09|wild_explorer|Google Origamiboats group: no files and pages – effective Feb 2011|Google decided to stop supporting files and page creating/editing option in Google groups starting November 2010 and will turn off these features in February 2011. Original Google's announcement link: http://groups-announcements.blogspot.com/2010/09/notice-about-pages-and-files.html I will back up information from Google Origamiboats group, but if you see something useful for you there, please save it on your computer. Google group is loosing main advantage over Yahoo group – web-pages creation feature and allowing to see it to non-members (same for files). That was the main reason of creating Google Origamiboats group. Google group still might be used as an "emergency/temporary" option for Origamiboats group jump-start from Ben's Yahoo group backup. I was wondering about ability of Yahoo to support "full" group service about 1 year ago, but it looks like Google went down in flames sooner than Yahoo in this field. More likely, Google realized that not so many people willing to get Gmail account just to use Google groups and they really start pushing it. Google's suggested alternatives for groups require to have Gmail/Google account. This is the main reason why I am avoiding usage of Google services.| 24089|24088|2010-10-01 14:15:50|h|Re: Google Origamiboats group: no files and pages – effective Feb 2|How is the boat design going, found a design you're happy with? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Google decided to stop supporting files and page creating/editing option in Google groups starting November 2010 and will turn off these features in February 2011. > > Original Google's announcement link: > > http://groups-announcements.blogspot.com/2010/09/notice-about-pages-and-files.html > > I will back up information from Google Origamiboats group, but if you see something useful for you there, please save it on your computer. > > Google group is loosing main advantage over Yahoo group – web-pages creation feature and allowing to see it to non-members (same for files). That was the main reason of creating Google Origamiboats group. > > Google group still might be used as an "emergency/temporary" option for Origamiboats group jump-start from Ben's Yahoo group backup. > > I was wondering about ability of Yahoo to support "full" group service about 1 year ago, but it looks like Google went down in flames sooner than Yahoo in this field. More likely, Google realized that not so many people willing to get Gmail account just to use Google groups and they really start pushing it. Google's suggested alternatives for groups require to have Gmail/Google account. This is the main reason why I am avoiding usage of Google services. > | 24090|24088|2010-10-01 18:58:56|wild_explorer|Modeling (was Re: Google Origamiboats group)|I abandoned my modeling project for a while (had to take care of others things). I would not call what I am doing "boat design". I do not have enough knowledge for it. May be just enough for modeling. I would call it "visualization". So, I can put some ideas in 3D and ask more experienced people what they think about it. It is easier to try and discard ideas in 3D. It allows me to clarify some questions I have. Brent's design looks more and more appealing to me. It is very practical and that what I like in his boats. Best of all, Brent use the boat of his design every day and constantly makes some small improvements. That why, I feel, he should not change anything just because someone ask for changes. Proven design is usually much better than constantly changing or new one. Brent's plans would be the best beat for someone who is "ready to build it NOW". --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > How is the boat design going, found a design you're happy with? > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" < | 24091|24079|2010-10-01 19:36:42|brentswain38|Re: BS 36 Skeg Size|The skeg needs the same draft as the twin keels. You can put it on longm, then trim it later, to make the boat sit roughly level. The beach is never level. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "akenai" wrote: > > Brent > I noticed in several photo's that the skeg appears to be alot wider at the bottom on the twin keel version. How is the shorter length determined? > Aaron > | 24092|23755|2010-10-01 19:43:36|brentswain38|Re: Origamiboat modeling (3D, pattern, model)|The top one , if it has the same beam, would have better stability, as it has slightly less flare. It would also be less prone to hobby horsing, altho it is hard to tell, with only one perspective. Both look like well balanced hulls.. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Brent, could you take a look at this image please? > > http://groups.google.com/group/origamiboats/web/V_77_vs_27_12_sc_v9_14_____3.JPG > > The question I have: what hull shape might me better in terms of stability and directional stability? Any others concerns? > > Both hulls have similar speed characteristics. One is more "traditional" type another one more "origami" type. > | 24093|23988|2010-10-01 23:04:55|Gord Schnell|Re: was Re: aluminum trimaran? now what side of the road to drive on|Probably because most of the world has "seen the light" and drive on the Right side of the road.....sorry.....just being "cheeky" Gord On 26-Sep-10, at 11:42 AM, rhko47 wrote: > I have a theory that in seafaring nations, the driver is on the > right because the "steer-board" (steering oar) was on the right to > suit right-handed steersmen. In continental lands, the dominant > influence was the chariot, in which the driver had to be on the left > so the archer or spear-thrower (right-handed) could be on the right. > As the railroad was developed in Britain, the engineer is on the > right side of the locomotive. (But the British railway gauge is > based on the width of the Roman chariot.) I think this explains the > positions of the operators and hence the side of the road driven on, > but what I can't figure out is why the preferred passage at sea is > port-to-port, i.e., driving on the right, not the left as in > seafaring countries. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > > > Thanks to all who responded to my interest in an aluminum origami > trimaran, and I apologize for taking so long to respond. > > > > Paul: your suggestion to search for "aluminium" as well as > "aluminum" was most helpful. You'd think that the English-speaking > world could agree on standardized spellings, but then we can't agree > on what side of the road to drive on either! LOL > > > > Denis: thanks for your offer for information on large aluminum > trimaran projects. The problem I'm facing is what is the smallest > size trimaran that can be built in aluminum? My understanding is > that as you scale an aluminum boat smaller and smaller, at some > point the skin gets too thin to weld, and isn't stiff enough to > bridge between stringers without oil-canning. > > > > Etienne: I enjoyed reading through the Yago project. It helped me > to better understand how the origami process works. And like you I'm > interested in using a free-standing mast, perhaps with a soft > wingsail. Have you worked on designing such a cruising trimaran? > > > > Brent: My understanding is the part of the strength of your > origami design is the egg-shaped curves. The hulls of trimarans and > catamarans are typically much narrower than monohulls. What is the > largest length to breadth ratio that you feel is safe in an aluminum > origami haul � say for a hull that is 38' long? 4:1? 5:1? 6:1? 8:1? > Do you know of anyone who designs aluminum origami trimaran hulls? > > > > My understanding is that waterline length to breadth ratio of many > trimarans is at least 8:1. Does anyone know how adversely the > sailing ability of a trimaran would be affected if that ratio were > dropped to 6:1 or 5:1? I'm not interested in a fast tri, but I would > like to be able to carry a larger payload than most trimarans' > specifications allow for. > > > > Again, thanks to all for your comments? > > > > John > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24094|24077|2010-10-02 07:05:08|Doug Jackson|Re: Plans for Anchors|This is what I'm thinking about building: http://www.submarineboat.com/images/sailboat/180%20pound%20Spade%20Anchor.jpg Is there a big advantage to putting that hinge in the shank? Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Doug Jackson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 10:28:49 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors Thanks. That one is going on the list too. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: h To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 1:14:36 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php/topic,2207.0.html theres a picture of what I mean with the shank, one could make one hell of big anchor as the fluke part doesn't have to be supper heavy with these spade style anchors, at least theres no lead in them, I like the rocna style better with the roll bar but the way they have the shank removable on these anchors would be easy to do and it'd allow you to store your 200 lbs anchor in the bilge without the shank getting in the way. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Thanks for the ideas Paul. A bolt together Bulwagga will be perfect. > Especially considering we need them in the 100+ pound size. > > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Paul Wilson > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wed, September 29, 2010 6:18:11 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Plans for Anchors > > I thought I had the dimensions of a Delta but can't seem to find them. > The Bulwagga anchor would be very simple to build. I think you could > easily build one that bolted together for storage below as an emergency > spare or hurricane anchor. They get pretty good reviews but > unfortunately won't go on a bow roller. > > http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/groups/historical/Bulwagga/dimensions.htm > > http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/new-gen-boat-anchors-explained.php > > Cheers, Paul > > On 9/30/2010 10:47 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > Does anybody have plans for building anchors? > > > > Thanks > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3166 - Release Date: 09/29/10 > >18:37:00 > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24095|24077|2010-10-02 10:39:29|h|Re: Plans for Anchors|Nice, where'd you find those plans? looks like a nice easy to build fast setting anchor, I'd put a roll bar on the back of it though like they have on the rocnas just to flip it into the ground faster. Do you mean a hinge like on a CQR? I've never used one I have a delta which is pretty much a CQR without the hinge seems to work fine. I'm guessing the hinge is to take some of the strain of the shank when it has to pivot directions in the sand, otherwise I don't know why it's there, seems like it would just allow the anchor to drag side ways for longer when setting. I'd prefer not to have any moving parts if I can do without them, One could always weld the roll bar to the shank as well which would help to support it from twisting and spread the load out to the flukes more evenly. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > This is what I'm thinking about building: > http://www.submarineboat.com/images/sailboat/180%20pound%20Spade%20Anchor.jpg > > Is there a big advantage to putting that hinge in the shank? > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Doug Jackson > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 10:28:49 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > Thanks. That one is going on the list too. > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: h > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 1:14:36 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php/topic,2207.0.html > > theres a picture of what I mean with the shank, one could make one hell of big > anchor as the fluke part doesn't have to be supper heavy with these spade style > anchors, at least theres no lead in them, I like the rocna style better with the > roll bar but the way they have the shank removable on these anchors would be > easy to do and it'd allow you to store your 200 lbs anchor in the bilge without > the shank getting in the way. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > Thanks for the ideas Paul. A bolt together Bulwagga will be perfect. > > Especially considering we need them in the 100+ pound size. > > > > > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Paul Wilson > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wed, September 29, 2010 6:18:11 PM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Plans for Anchors > > > > I thought I had the dimensions of a Delta but can't seem to find them. > > The Bulwagga anchor would be very simple to build. I think you could > > easily build one that bolted together for storage below as an emergency > > spare or hurricane anchor. They get pretty good reviews but > > unfortunately won't go on a bow roller. > > > > http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/groups/historical/Bulwagga/dimensions.htm > > > > http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/new-gen-boat-anchors-explained.php > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > On 9/30/2010 10:47 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > > > Does anybody have plans for building anchors? > > > > > > Thanks > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3166 - Release Date: 09/29/10 > > >18:37:00 > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24096|24096|2010-10-02 11:55:50|sitefix|HF Coms|Well, my neighbor has tuned me into HF digital coms. I had been avoiding such for a long time due to the price of pactor and such. he gave me a small gift box with a signalink and cables in it and recommended i download winmore and hamscope. ok, yes you need a ham license, general for the hf privileges and a radio. i already have a ic 706mk2g so hooking up to that, a wire antenna and my computer has now put me in to a state of being able to send and receive basic email at 300 baud with no internet connections to my computer. nice. a bit slow but still rather doable. so???? no big fees for usage, maybe a donation or such to the developer. i am pleased with the possibilities of such communications. $ 100 = signalink modem/sound card with connections. free software $1000 = HAM RADIO if you don't have one $ 100 = or there abouts for and antenna system to start with $ 500 = computer if you don't have one. (how is you reeding dis)??? so, if you have a decent hf ham rig, and computer with xp (i found the xp system easy to set up but ms7 to be a bear that i am still working with for a friend and vista i gave up on). anyways, i was thinking that if i was not aware of this, i would certainly like to have it brought to my attention. you can put into and retrieve you mail into a mailbox on the internet. it is recommended to keep things simple and small, but hey, there is an attachment selection. who knows, if you have patients maybe a picture could be sent. hope maybe somebody can use this. it is certainly what i had been waiting for and the price is right. 73 w3par| 24097|23755|2010-10-02 13:55:02|wild_explorer|Re: Origamiboat modeling (3D, pattern, model)|Thanks Brent. I will correct top one (make it more pattern friendly) and send you lines plan for verification. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > The top one , if it has the same beam, would have better stability, as it has slightly less flare. It would also be less prone to hobby horsing, altho it is hard to tell, with only one perspective. Both look like well balanced hulls.. > | 24098|24077|2010-10-02 15:32:32|brentswain38|Re: Plans for Anchors|You will definitely need a roll bar. That corner above the trip line hole, in the back of the shank will foul anchor rodes, and not let them shake off. We had to round it off on delta anchors for that reason. Try it on your first ones. I'd like to try a roll bar instead of ballast on a Delta. That would greatly simplify things. Test the first one for modifications needed, before building more. Hinges are a weak point on any anchor. Best eliminate them . A roll bar should let you do that. Danforth plows had them constantly breaking, and the first CQRs kept breaking them, until they made them huge. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > This is what I'm thinking about building: > http://www.submarineboat.com/images/sailboat/180%20pound%20Spade%20Anchor.jpg > > Is there a big advantage to putting that hinge in the shank? > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Doug Jackson > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 10:28:49 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > Thanks. That one is going on the list too. > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: h > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 1:14:36 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php/topic,2207.0.html > > theres a picture of what I mean with the shank, one could make one hell of big > anchor as the fluke part doesn't have to be supper heavy with these spade style > anchors, at least theres no lead in them, I like the rocna style better with the > roll bar but the way they have the shank removable on these anchors would be > easy to do and it'd allow you to store your 200 lbs anchor in the bilge without > the shank getting in the way. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > Thanks for the ideas Paul. A bolt together Bulwagga will be perfect. > > Especially considering we need them in the 100+ pound size. > > > > > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Paul Wilson > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wed, September 29, 2010 6:18:11 PM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Plans for Anchors > > > > I thought I had the dimensions of a Delta but can't seem to find them. > > The Bulwagga anchor would be very simple to build. I think you could > > easily build one that bolted together for storage below as an emergency > > spare or hurricane anchor. They get pretty good reviews but > > unfortunately won't go on a bow roller. > > > > http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/groups/historical/Bulwagga/dimensions.htm > > > > http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/new-gen-boat-anchors-explained.php > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > On 9/30/2010 10:47 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > > > Does anybody have plans for building anchors? > > > > > > Thanks > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3166 - Release Date: 09/29/10 > > >18:37:00 > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24099|24077|2010-10-02 20:51:31|Doug Jackson|Re: Plans for Anchors|Sure, I was planning to put that on there and forgot about it. They always use pipe but I was wondering if 1/4 x 2" flat bar wouldn't work just as well. And why not connect it to the shank with a piece going forward to help keep it from bending? I'll round off the back corner of the shank too. Thanks for the input. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, October 2, 2010 2:32:30 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors You will definitely need a roll bar. That corner above the trip line hole, in the back of the shank will foul anchor rodes, and not let them shake off. We had to round it off on delta anchors for that reason. Try it on your first ones. I'd like to try a roll bar instead of ballast on a Delta. That would greatly simplify things. Test the first one for modifications needed, before building more. Hinges are a weak point on any anchor. Best eliminate them . A roll bar should let you do that. Danforth plows had them constantly breaking, and the first CQRs kept breaking them, until they made them huge. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > This is what I'm thinking about building: > http://www.submarineboat.com/images/sailboat/180%20pound%20Spade%20Anchor.jpg > > Is there a big advantage to putting that hinge in the shank? > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Doug Jackson > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 10:28:49 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > Thanks. That one is going on the list too. > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: h > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 1:14:36 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php/topic,2207.0.html > > theres a picture of what I mean with the shank, one could make one hell of big > anchor as the fluke part doesn't have to be supper heavy with these spade style > > anchors, at least theres no lead in them, I like the rocna style better with >the > > roll bar but the way they have the shank removable on these anchors would be > easy to do and it'd allow you to store your 200 lbs anchor in the bilge without > > the shank getting in the way. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > Thanks for the ideas Paul. A bolt together Bulwagga will be perfect. > > Especially considering we need them in the 100+ pound size. > > > > > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Paul Wilson > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wed, September 29, 2010 6:18:11 PM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Plans for Anchors > > > > I thought I had the dimensions of a Delta but can't seem to find them. > > The Bulwagga anchor would be very simple to build. I think you could > > easily build one that bolted together for storage below as an emergency > > spare or hurricane anchor. They get pretty good reviews but > > unfortunately won't go on a bow roller. > > > > http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/groups/historical/Bulwagga/dimensions.htm > > > > http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/new-gen-boat-anchors-explained.php > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > On 9/30/2010 10:47 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > > > Does anybody have plans for building anchors? > > > > > > Thanks > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3166 - Release Date: 09/29/10 > > >18:37:00 > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24100|24077|2010-10-02 21:14:57|Paul Wilson|Re: Plans for Anchors|Thanks Doug, Excellent drawings and information. I would like to have a bigger, better holding anchor that can go on my bow roller to replace my 45 pound plow. When I get the time I may scale one down to 55 pounds or so..... I am wondering it the edge gets sharpened where the plate is doubled up.....it looks like it is 1 inch plate doubled onto the 1/4 inch plate on the spade for weight. I like the extra weight but this seems likes awfully thick plate to penetrate the bottom and if it is beveled or sharpened, it might be an improvement. Or with a roll bar, is increased weight at the tip of the spade even necessary? Both the ROCNA and Bugel anchors which have the roll bar, have no tip weight. Testing behind a four wheel drive might be required..... Cheers, Paul On 10/3/2010 1:51 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Sure, I was planning to put that on there and forgot about it. They > always use > pipe but I was wondering if 1/4 x 2" flat bar wouldn't work just as > well. And > why not connect it to the shank with a piece going forward to help > keep it from > bending? > > I'll round off the back corner of the shank too. > > Thanks for the input. > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > ________________________________ > From: brentswain38 > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sat, October 2, 2010 2:32:30 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > You will definitely need a roll bar. That corner above the trip line > hole, in > the back of the shank will foul anchor rodes, and not let them shake > off. We had > to round it off on delta anchors for that reason. Try it on your first > ones. > > I'd like to try a roll bar instead of ballast on a Delta. That would > greatly > simplify things. > > Test the first one for modifications needed, before building more. > Hinges are a weak point on any anchor. Best eliminate them . A roll > bar should > let you do that. Danforth plows had them constantly breaking, and the > first > CQRs kept breaking them, until they made them huge. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Doug Jackson > wrote: > > > > This is what I'm thinking about building: > > > http://www.submarineboat.com/images/sailboat/180%20pound%20Spade%20Anchor.jpg > > > > Is there a big advantage to putting that hinge in the shank? > > > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Doug Jackson > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 10:28:49 PM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > > > > Thanks. That one is going on the list too. > > > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: h > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 1:14:36 PM > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > > > > http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php/topic,2207.0.html > > > > theres a picture of what I mean with the shank, one could make one > hell of big > > > anchor as the fluke part doesn't have to be supper heavy with these > spade style > > > > anchors, at least theres no lead in them, I like the rocna style > better with > >the > > > > roll bar but the way they have the shank removable on these anchors > would be > > easy to do and it'd allow you to store your 200 lbs anchor in the > bilge without > > > > the shank getting in the way. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for the ideas Paul. A bolt together Bulwagga will be perfect. > > > Especially considering we need them in the 100+ pound size. > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Paul Wilson > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Wed, September 29, 2010 6:18:11 PM > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Plans for Anchors > > > > > > I thought I had the dimensions of a Delta but can't seem to find > them. > > > The Bulwagga anchor would be very simple to build. I think you could > > > easily build one that bolted together for storage below as an > emergency > > > spare or hurricane anchor. They get pretty good reviews but > > > unfortunately won't go on a bow roller. > > > > > > > http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/groups/historical/Bulwagga/dimensions.htm > > > > > > > http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/new-gen-boat-anchors-explained.php > > > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > > > On 9/30/2010 10:47 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > > > > > Does anybody have plans for building anchors? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3166 - Release Date: > 09/29/10 > > > >18:37:00 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3172 - Release Date: 10/02/10 19:34:00 > | 24101|24077|2010-10-03 01:12:30|Doug Jackson|Re: Plans for Anchors|HTML clipboardThanks Paul but my CAD work is really sloppy. I make myself do it because we have that wonderful CNC table out in the shop to which I can attach the plasma torch. The revision adds a roll bar; makes the shank rounded to avoid snagging the rode and moves the trip line, or pendent line attachment point to the back edge of the spade. Not shown, but the 1 1/4", blunt front edge would actually get a 45 degree taper with the torch after it's initially cut. http://www.submarineboat.com/images/sailboat/180%20pound%20Spade%20Anchor%202.jpg The anchor I am stealing most of this from is a Rocna: http://www.submarineboat.com/images/sailboat/Rocna%20stowable.jpg http://www.submarineboat.com/images/sailboat/Rocna%20Anchor.jpg That roll bar might need to be 3/8" instead of 1/4". And it might need that shoulder on the side of the spade as an attachment point and also a skid to help make sure it's the tip that digs in and not the side of the spade. I'll build one eventually and test it. For now it's just a plan but I want to add plans for other anchors in various sizes. Doug ArgonautJr.com ----- Original Message ---- From: Paul Wilson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, October 2, 2010 8:16:32 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors Thanks Doug, Excellent drawings and information. I would like to have a bigger, better holding anchor that can go on my bow roller to replace my 45 pound plow. When I get the time I may scale one down to 55 pounds or so..... I am wondering it the edge gets sharpened where the plate is doubled up.....it looks like it is 1 inch plate doubled onto the 1/4 inch plate on the spade for weight. I like the extra weight but this seems likes awfully thick plate to penetrate the bottom and if it is beveled or sharpened, it might be an improvement. Or with a roll bar, is increased weight at the tip of the spade even necessary? Both the ROCNA and Bugel anchors which have the roll bar, have no tip weight. Testing behind a four wheel drive might be required..... Cheers, Paul On 10/3/2010 1:51 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Sure, I was planning to put that on there and forgot about it. They > always use > pipe but I was wondering if 1/4 x 2" flat bar wouldn't work just as > well. And > why not connect it to the shank with a piece going forward to help > keep it from > bending? > > I'll round off the back corner of the shank too. > > Thanks for the input. > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > ________________________________ > From: brentswain38 > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sat, October 2, 2010 2:32:30 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > You will definitely need a roll bar. That corner above the trip line > hole, in > the back of the shank will foul anchor rodes, and not let them shake > off. We had > to round it off on delta anchors for that reason. Try it on your first > ones. > > I'd like to try a roll bar instead of ballast on a Delta. That would > greatly > simplify things. > > Test the first one for modifications needed, before building more. > Hinges are a weak point on any anchor. Best eliminate them . A roll > bar should > let you do that. Danforth plows had them constantly breaking, and the > first > CQRs kept breaking them, until they made them huge. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Doug Jackson > wrote: > > > > This is what I'm thinking about building: > > > http://www.submarineboat.com/images/sailboat/180%20pound%20Spade%20Anchor.jpg > > > > Is there a big advantage to putting that hinge in the shank? > > > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Doug Jackson > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 10:28:49 PM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > > > > Thanks. That one is going on the list too. > > > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: h > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 1:14:36 PM > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > > > > http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php/topic,2207.0.html > > > > theres a picture of what I mean with the shank, one could make one > hell of big > > > anchor as the fluke part doesn't have to be supper heavy with these > spade style > > > > anchors, at least theres no lead in them, I like the rocna style > better with > >the > > > > roll bar but the way they have the shank removable on these anchors > would be > > easy to do and it'd allow you to store your 200 lbs anchor in the > bilge without > > > > the shank getting in the way. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for the ideas Paul. A bolt together Bulwagga will be perfect. > > > Especially considering we need them in the 100+ pound size. > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Paul Wilson > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Wed, September 29, 2010 6:18:11 PM > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Plans for Anchors > > > > > > I thought I had the dimensions of a Delta but can't seem to find > them. > > > The Bulwagga anchor would be very simple to build. I think you could > > > easily build one that bolted together for storage below as an > emergency > > > spare or hurricane anchor. They get pretty good reviews but > > > unfortunately won't go on a bow roller. > > > > > > > http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/groups/historical/Bulwagga/dimensions.htm > > > > > > > http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/new-gen-boat-anchors-explained.php > > > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > > > On 9/30/2010 10:47 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > > > > > Does anybody have plans for building anchors? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3166 - Release Date: > 09/29/10 > > > >18:37:00 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3172 - Release Date: 10/02/10 >19:34:00 > ------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24102|23914|2010-10-03 12:28:31|h|Re: Mast climbing|oh that reminds me check this out I pulled it of some other forum I wonder how easy it'd be to pull of if your mast hinges and is supported side to side as mine is? http://towndock.net/news/mast-raising-from-the-bridge --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > The next time you are climbing the mast of your boat, think of these guys. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhtgsAXmz7U& > > Cheers, Paul > | 24103|23914|2010-10-03 18:28:36|martin demers|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|one thing that would scare me about that synthetic rigging is if you make a little cut to it by touching it accidently with a piece of metal or something else and then it would possibly detach completely. any comments? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: audeojude@... Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 01:11:46 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability I did a while back and it came out within a couple hundred for totally replacing the existing rig as it is now. I actually looked at the price of buying a whole spool of the dyneema dux and the fittings. The fittings for my current rig aren't cheap. I guess if I went to galvanized and brent style rigging that it would be much much cheaper than what I currently have. the thing that I really liked about the dyneema over existing is that reports from people that have gone to it is that their boats perform better due to a stiffer rig and loosing all that weight aloft. The dyneema is about 15% of the weight of a standard stainless rig. So I would probably lose about 60 to 70 lbs aloft. which would be the same as adding about 700 lbs of lead to the keel with less overall weight to the boat. I haven't sailed on a boat rigged with it much less before and after to compare the boat with both styles of rig. So it is all hearsay. however it isn't a new material.. just new to rigging on sailboats in the last 6 or 7 years. The commercial guys have been using this stuff like crazy for a while and they love it for weight, price, strength and endurance in their applications. My opinion is that it and similar products will be the standard rigging of the future. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > Scott: Dyneema--Before thinking about it for another second price it out. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24104|23914|2010-10-03 19:53:16|Ben Okopnik|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 06:28:27PM -0400, martin demers wrote: > > one thing that would scare me about that synthetic rigging is if you > make a little cut to it by touching it accidently with a piece of > metal or something else and then it would possibly detach completely. > any comments? I have no experience with Dyneema at all, but if it was that fragile, I wouldn't think that commercial fishermen would be using the stuff. They're not particularly known for being hyper-careful prima-donnas; with those guys, if the stuff doesn't stand up to hard, rough usage, they don't use it. I very much doubt that the manufacturers would sell it if it was that touchy, either. They'd be looking at constant lawsuits due to spars falling down, people killed, etc. I'm visualizing something like Tyvek (the stuff that those indestructible fibrous white plastic envelopes are made from); it takes one hell of a lot of cutting to get through it, and that's only a couple of mils thick. A rope made out of it would be pretty tough stuff. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24105|23914|2010-10-04 06:19:02|sae140|Aramid ropes - was Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > one thing that would scare me about that synthetic rigging is if you make a little cut to it by touching it accidently with a piece of metal or something else and then it would possibly detach completely. any comments? > Martin. A lot depends on the outer cover. Commercial stuff - Parafil(tm) - comes with a variety of coverings. I've bought about a thousand feet of 8.5 and 11 mm with polyethylene outer from boot sales over the last few years for around £25 (the lot). It's unwanted, as no-one can figure out a really good way of terminating it easily and cheaply. Apparently this stuff was used as offshore safety-line, and for underwater operations where expensive pin and barrel terminations are used. It's also used within pre-stressed concrete structures instead of steel, and on suspension bridges. The parallel Aramid core has almost zero stretch, but uses of this rope are limited, with any blocks needing to have a very large diameter, etc. I'm still experimenting with DIY termination techniques: epoxy-based methods are looking good, but I'm still finding that the epoxy fails well before the fibre does (using the well-known 'suspend a Land-Rover in the air' test). Next on the list for testing is Brummel splicing, with and without an epoxy supplement.| 24106|24077|2010-10-04 10:32:25|Doug Jackson|Re: Plans for Anchors|Those are plans I drew from just looking at photos of anchors. It's not been built or tested. And thank you for the input about the hinge. The claim is that it lets the anchor move the direction of pull 180 degrees without pulling free. I think the best starting point is no-hinge and then consider it if needed. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: h To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, October 2, 2010 9:39:20 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors Nice, where'd you find those plans? looks like a nice easy to build fast setting anchor, I'd put a roll bar on the back of it though like they have on the rocnas just to flip it into the ground faster. Do you mean a hinge like on a CQR? I've never used one I have a delta which is pretty much a CQR without the hinge seems to work fine. I'm guessing the hinge is to take some of the strain of the shank when it has to pivot directions in the sand, otherwise I don't know why it's there, seems like it would just allow the anchor to drag side ways for longer when setting. I'd prefer not to have any moving parts if I can do without them, One could always weld the roll bar to the shank as well which would help to support it from twisting and spread the load out to the flukes more evenly. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > This is what I'm thinking about building: > http://www.submarineboat.com/images/sailboat/180%20pound%20Spade%20Anchor.jpg > > Is there a big advantage to putting that hinge in the shank? > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Doug Jackson > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 10:28:49 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > Thanks. That one is going on the list too. > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: h > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 1:14:36 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php/topic,2207.0.html > > theres a picture of what I mean with the shank, one could make one hell of big > anchor as the fluke part doesn't have to be supper heavy with these spade style > > anchors, at least theres no lead in them, I like the rocna style better with >the > > roll bar but the way they have the shank removable on these anchors would be > easy to do and it'd allow you to store your 200 lbs anchor in the bilge without > > the shank getting in the way. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > Thanks for the ideas Paul. A bolt together Bulwagga will be perfect. > > Especially considering we need them in the 100+ pound size. > > > > > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Paul Wilson > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wed, September 29, 2010 6:18:11 PM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Plans for Anchors > > > > I thought I had the dimensions of a Delta but can't seem to find them. > > The Bulwagga anchor would be very simple to build. I think you could > > easily build one that bolted together for storage below as an emergency > > spare or hurricane anchor. They get pretty good reviews but > > unfortunately won't go on a bow roller. > > > > http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/groups/historical/Bulwagga/dimensions.htm > > > > http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/new-gen-boat-anchors-explained.php > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > On 9/30/2010 10:47 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > > > Does anybody have plans for building anchors? > > > > > > Thanks > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3166 - Release Date: 09/29/10 > > >18:37:00 > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24107|23914|2010-10-04 14:38:11|brentswain38|Re: Mast climbing|With the twin keeler, you simply park on a beach with a high hill behind it. You take a rope from the top of the mast to the top of the hill, pull it up, tie it off to a tree, then go down and do up your rigging. The lower shrouds attached to the braced stanchions stop any sideways movement , and the backstay stops it from going too far. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > oh that reminds me check this out I pulled it of some other forum I wonder how easy it'd be to pull of if your mast hinges and is supported side to side as mine is? > > http://towndock.net/news/mast-raising-from-the-bridge > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > The next time you are climbing the mast of your boat, think of these guys. > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhtgsAXmz7U& > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > | 24108|24077|2010-10-04 14:41:21|brentswain38|Re: Plans for Anchors|You can walk the docks and take cardboard patterns, and thicknesses, and any other dimensions off any anchor you want. Most skippers will say "Go ahead." --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Those are plans I drew from just looking at photos of anchors. It's not been > built or tested. > > > And thank you for the input about the hinge. The claim is that it lets the > anchor move the direction of pull 180 degrees without pulling free. I think the > best starting point is no-hinge and then consider it if needed. > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: h > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sat, October 2, 2010 9:39:20 AM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > Nice, where'd you find those plans? looks like a nice easy to build fast setting > anchor, I'd put a roll bar on the back of it though like they have on the rocnas > just to flip it into the ground faster. > > Do you mean a hinge like on a CQR? I've never used one I have a delta which is > pretty much a CQR without the hinge seems to work fine. I'm guessing the hinge > is to take some of the strain of the shank when it has to pivot directions in > the sand, otherwise I don't know why it's there, seems like it would just allow > the anchor to drag side ways for longer when setting. I'd prefer not to have any > moving parts if I can do without them, One could always weld the roll bar to the > shank as well which would help to support it from twisting and spread the load > out to the flukes more evenly. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > This is what I'm thinking about building: > > http://www.submarineboat.com/images/sailboat/180%20pound%20Spade%20Anchor.jpg > > > > Is there a big advantage to putting that hinge in the shank? > > > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Doug Jackson > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 10:28:49 PM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > > > > Thanks. That one is going on the list too. > > > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: h > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 1:14:36 PM > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > > > > http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php/topic,2207.0.html > > > > theres a picture of what I mean with the shank, one could make one hell of big > > > anchor as the fluke part doesn't have to be supper heavy with these spade style > > > > anchors, at least theres no lead in them, I like the rocna style better with > >the > > > > roll bar but the way they have the shank removable on these anchors would be > > easy to do and it'd allow you to store your 200 lbs anchor in the bilge without > > > > the shank getting in the way. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for the ideas Paul. A bolt together Bulwagga will be perfect. > > > Especially considering we need them in the 100+ pound size. > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Paul Wilson > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Wed, September 29, 2010 6:18:11 PM > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Plans for Anchors > > > > > > I thought I had the dimensions of a Delta but can't seem to find them. > > > The Bulwagga anchor would be very simple to build. I think you could > > > easily build one that bolted together for storage below as an emergency > > > spare or hurricane anchor. They get pretty good reviews but > > > unfortunately won't go on a bow roller. > > > > > > http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/groups/historical/Bulwagga/dimensions.htm > > > > > > http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/new-gen-boat-anchors-explained.php > > > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > > > On 9/30/2010 10:47 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > > > > > Does anybody have plans for building anchors? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3166 - Release Date: 09/29/10 > > > >18:37:00 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24109|24077|2010-10-04 17:14:51|Doug Jackson|Re: Plans for Anchors|You can walk the docks. I live in Oklahoma. :) Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, October 4, 2010 1:41:11 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors You can walk the docks and take cardboard patterns, and thicknesses, and any other dimensions off any anchor you want. Most skippers will say "Go ahead." --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Those are plans I drew from just looking at photos of anchors. It's not been > built or tested. > > > And thank you for the input about the hinge. The claim is that it lets the > anchor move the direction of pull 180 degrees without pulling free. I think >the > > best starting point is no-hinge and then consider it if needed. > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: h > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sat, October 2, 2010 9:39:20 AM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > Nice, where'd you find those plans? looks like a nice easy to build fast >setting > > anchor, I'd put a roll bar on the back of it though like they have on the >rocnas > > just to flip it into the ground faster. > > Do you mean a hinge like on a CQR? I've never used one I have a delta which is > pretty much a CQR without the hinge seems to work fine. I'm guessing the hinge > is to take some of the strain of the shank when it has to pivot directions in > the sand, otherwise I don't know why it's there, seems like it would just allow > > the anchor to drag side ways for longer when setting. I'd prefer not to have >any > > moving parts if I can do without them, One could always weld the roll bar to >the > > shank as well which would help to support it from twisting and spread the load > out to the flukes more evenly. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > This is what I'm thinking about building: > > http://www.submarineboat.com/images/sailboat/180%20pound%20Spade%20Anchor.jpg > > > > Is there a big advantage to putting that hinge in the shank? > > > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Doug Jackson > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 10:28:49 PM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > > > > Thanks. That one is going on the list too. > > > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: h > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 1:14:36 PM > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > > > > http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php/topic,2207.0.html > > > > theres a picture of what I mean with the shank, one could make one hell of >big > > > > anchor as the fluke part doesn't have to be supper heavy with these spade >style > > > > > anchors, at least theres no lead in them, I like the rocna style better with > >the > > > > roll bar but the way they have the shank removable on these anchors would be > > easy to do and it'd allow you to store your 200 lbs anchor in the bilge >without > > > > > the shank getting in the way. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for the ideas Paul. A bolt together Bulwagga will be perfect. > > > Especially considering we need them in the 100+ pound size. > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Paul Wilson > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Wed, September 29, 2010 6:18:11 PM > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Plans for Anchors > > > > > > I thought I had the dimensions of a Delta but can't seem to find them. > > > The Bulwagga anchor would be very simple to build. I think you could > > > easily build one that bolted together for storage below as an emergency > > > spare or hurricane anchor. They get pretty good reviews but > > > unfortunately won't go on a bow roller. > > > > > > http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/groups/historical/Bulwagga/dimensions.htm > > > > > > >http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/new-gen-boat-anchors-explained.php > > > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > > > On 9/30/2010 10:47 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > > > > > Does anybody have plans for building anchors? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3166 - Release Date: 09/29/10 > > > >18:37:00 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24110|23988|2010-10-04 18:11:39|Denis Buggy|Re: aluminum trimaran?|DEAR JOHN AND ALL WITH A CLUE -- if I scale the USS independence to fit Johns request I get figures which make no sense to me maybe somebody can explain -------------- USS INDEPENDENCE PRESENTLY ---- 127 METERS LONG BY 32 METERS BEAM--- DISPLACEMENT 2784 TONS---- 14 FT DRAFT === TO MAKE IT JOHNS 12 METER /40FT BOAT IT REQUIRES A SCALE OF 10.58 TO CONVERT --THEREFORE 127 X 32 X 2784 TONS DIVIDED BY 10.58 WOULD SCALE === 12M LONG --BEAM 3.02 WEIGHT 263 TONS DISPLACEMENT ??? HARDLY CORRECT --CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN regards Denis ----- Original Message ----- From: jhess314 - I've been searching through this forum looking for information about whether it is practical to build the hull of a cruising 35'-40' trimaran out of aluminum using the origami technique? So far I've only found a few references to aluminum trimarans, and none actually designed or built. I suppose that not finding anything definitive is an answer in itself, but I thought I'd ask anyway. I'm more interested in a tri that could carry the load the a cruiser would require, rather than being light and fast. Thanks, John [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24111|23914|2010-10-04 18:25:37|scott|Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability|It will take a lot of abrasion and still stay strong.. you can even wear part way through it and it will still be really strong. Ben is correct about the abuse the commercial fishing fleets put on this stuff. So far the biggest draw back I have heard is UV and right now they are saying 5 to 7 and probably longer. They also have a UV blocker you can wipe on the shrouds once a year to help with that.. supposedly there is a newer stronger even less stretchy generation of this stuff coming out that is even more UV resistant.. I heard this from the company that sells the rigging. I got a quote of about 3300 for all the line and all the fittings to totally change the rig over. Pricier than I had hoped but about what I expected. This was materials only and you would have do do all your own splices etc.. For it pre-spliced on the deadeyes and terminators it was 4000 dollars. I just think it is ohh ahh cool but it seems my pocket book might rule in this case. There is also some controversy now over the age of my rig... supposedly it is 7 years old... I had thought it was more in the lines of the original rig. If it is only 7 years old I will probably dye test all the fittings and stay with it for a while longer. I have to talk with the company that sells the stuff but I'm going to see if they are ok with me posting the quote on the downeasteryachts.com website. If I do I will try and remember to link back here so that you can take a look. It specifies how many of each deadeye or terminators there are for the rig and cost of each individual shroud etc... I do need to replace my bobstay (bottom terminal is bent a bit) so I might replace that with this stuff just to play with it. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > one thing that would scare me about that synthetic rigging is if you make a little cut to it by touching it accidently with a piece of metal or something else and then it would possibly detach completely. any comments? > Martin. > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: audeojude@... > Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 01:11:46 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Seaworthiness an d righting ability > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did a while back and it came out within a couple hundred for totally replacing the existing rig as it is now. I actually looked at the price of buying a whole spool of the dyneema dux and the fittings. The fittings for my current rig aren't cheap. I guess if I went to galvanized and brent style rigging that it would be much much cheaper than what I currently have. > > > > the thing that I really liked about the dyneema over existing is that reports from people that have gone to it is that their boats perform better due to a stiffer rig and loosing all that weight aloft. The dyneema is about 15% of the weight of a standard stainless rig. So I would probably lose about 60 to 70 lbs aloft. which would be the same as adding about 700 lbs of lead to the keel with less overall weight to the boat. > > > > I haven't sailed on a boat rigged with it much less before and after to compare the boat with both styles of rig. So it is all hearsay. however it isn't a new material.. just new to rigging on sailboats in the last 6 or 7 years. The commercial guys have been using this stuff like crazy for a while and they love it for weight, price, strength and endurance in their applications. > > > > My opinion is that it and similar products will be the standard rigging of the future. > > scott > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > > > Scott: Dyneema--Before thinking about it for another second price it out. > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24112|24112|2010-10-04 18:38:04|ANDREW AIREY|Mast Climbing|Does 'Concerned Citizen' equate to 'Interfering Busybody'.Just goes to show that you can't beat a tabernacle and a decent winch - or a rig that doesn't require the absurd heights of a Marconi(Bermudan).David Harding(85) and I(62) dropped a 40ft steel mast on a Dutch sailing barge in about 30 minutes and I doubt that it would have taken much longer to raise it.'Het Leven' was a gaff rigger and the boom was hinged separately from the mast,which may have helped the process.Mind I did once help a friend to hoist his engine out of a boat using a (much smaller) bridge with,as I remember,a few interesting moments. cheers Andy Airey| 24113|24077|2010-10-04 19:36:46|David Frantz|Re: Plans for Anchors|That put a smile on my face! David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Oct 4, 2010, at 5:14 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > You can walk the docks. I live in Oklahoma. :) > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: brentswain38 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Mon, October 4, 2010 1:41:11 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > You can walk the docks and take cardboard patterns, and thicknesses, and any > other dimensions off any anchor you want. Most skippers will say "Go ahead." > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: >> >> Those are plans I drew from just looking at photos of anchors. It's not been >> built or tested. >> >> >> And thank you for the input about the hinge. The claim is that it lets the >> anchor move the direction of pull 180 degrees without pulling free. I think >> the >> >> best starting point is no-hinge and then consider it if needed. >> >> Doug >> ArgonautJr.com >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: h >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Sat, October 2, 2010 9:39:20 AM >> Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors >> >> >> Nice, where'd you find those plans? looks like a nice easy to build fast >> setting >> >> anchor, I'd put a roll bar on the back of it though like they have on the >> rocnas >> >> just to flip it into the ground faster. >> >> Do you mean a hinge like on a CQR? I've never used one I have a delta which is > >> pretty much a CQR without the hinge seems to work fine. I'm guessing the hinge > >> is to take some of the strain of the shank when it has to pivot directions in >> the sand, otherwise I don't know why it's there, seems like it would just allow >> >> the anchor to drag side ways for longer when setting. I'd prefer not to have >> any >> >> moving parts if I can do without them, One could always weld the roll bar to >> the >> >> shank as well which would help to support it from twisting and spread the load > >> out to the flukes more evenly. >> >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: >>> >>> This is what I'm thinking about building: >>> > http://www.submarineboat.com/images/sailboat/180%20pound%20Spade%20Anchor.jpg >>> >>> Is there a big advantage to putting that hinge in the shank? >>> >>> Doug >>> ArgonautJr.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Doug Jackson >>> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >>> Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 10:28:49 PM >>> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors >>> >>> >>> Thanks. That one is going on the list too. >>> >>> Doug >>> ArgonautJr.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: h >>> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >>> Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 1:14:36 PM >>> Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors >>> >>> >>> http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php/topic,2207.0.html >>> >>> theres a picture of what I mean with the shank, one could make one hell of >> big >> >> >>> anchor as the fluke part doesn't have to be supper heavy with these spade >> style >> >>> >>> anchors, at least theres no lead in them, I like the rocna style better with > >>> the >>> >>> roll bar but the way they have the shank removable on these anchors would be > >>> easy to do and it'd allow you to store your 200 lbs anchor in the bilge >> without >> >>> >>> the shank getting in the way. >>> >>> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks for the ideas Paul. A bolt together Bulwagga will be perfect. >>>> Especially considering we need them in the 100+ pound size. >>>> >>>> >>>> Doug >>>> ArgonautJr.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ---- >>>> From: Paul Wilson >>>> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >>>> Sent: Wed, September 29, 2010 6:18:11 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Plans for Anchors >>>> >>>> I thought I had the dimensions of a Delta but can't seem to find them. >>>> The Bulwagga anchor would be very simple to build. I think you could >>>> easily build one that bolted together for storage below as an emergency >>>> spare or hurricane anchor. They get pretty good reviews but >>>> unfortunately won't go on a bow roller. >>>> >>>> http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/groups/historical/Bulwagga/dimensions.htm >>>> >>>> >> http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/new-gen-boat-anchors-explained.php >>>> >>>> Cheers, Paul >>>> >>>> On 9/30/2010 10:47 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Does anybody have plans for building anchors? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Doug >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>>>> Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3166 - Release Date: 09/29/10 > >>>>> 18:37:00 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >>>> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: >>>> origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24114|24114|2010-10-05 10:09:38|SHANE ROTHWELL|aluminium Trimaran|John,   If you are interested in cruising offshore, It might be a good idea to look into "Boats"   This is often defined as a vessell that floats in water, carries people and cargo in a reasonably safe manor and most specifically, 'IS NOT RENOUNED FOR BREAKING UP AND IS MORE STABLE IN AN UPRIGHT POSITION THAN AN INVERTED ONE.   If you feel you really must continue on this line of "thought",  Please check out mentalmastrubation.com for a complete description of what you are looking for, but  please, please spare us this crap will you.   Thank you   Re: aluminum trimaran? Posted by: "Denis Buggy" buggy@...   deniswig Mon Oct 4, 2010 3:11 pm (PDT) DEAR JOHN AND ALL WITH A CLUE -- if I scale the USS independence to fit Johns request I get figures which make no sense to me maybe somebody can explain ------------ -- USS INDEPENDENCE PRESENTLY ---- 127 METERS LONG BY 32 METERS BEAM--- DISPLACEMENT 2784 TONS---- 14 FT DRAFT === TO MAKE IT JOHNS 12 METER /40FT BOAT IT REQUIRES A SCALE OF 10.58 TO CONVERT --THEREFORE 127 X 32 X 2784 TONS DIVIDED BY 10.58 WOULD SCALE === 12M LONG --BEAM 3.02 WEIGHT 263 TONS DISPLACEMENT ??? HARDLY CORRECT --CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN regards Denis ----- Original Message ----- From: jhess314 - I've been searching through this forum looking for information about whether it is practical to build the hull of a cruising 35'-40' trimaran out of aluminum using the origami technique? So far I've only found a few references to aluminum trimarans, and none actually designed or built. I suppose that not finding anything definitive is an answer in itself, but I thought I'd ask anyway. I'm more interested in a tri that could carry the load the a cruiser would require, rather than being light and fast. Thanks, John | 24115|23988|2010-10-05 10:50:52|Gary H. Lucas|Re: aluminum trimaran?|Denis, The dimensions scale that way, but displacement is closer to the scaling of the volume of the hull. So you'd divide the displace by about 1000. This results in a displacement that is a little light, which I think makes sense because you are limited by how thin the hull materials can be, probably not 1/10th of the full size ship. Make sense? Gary H. Lucas From: Denis Buggy Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 6:11 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? DEAR JOHN AND ALL WITH A CLUE -- if I scale the USS independence to fit Johns request I get figures which make no sense to me maybe somebody can explain -------------- USS INDEPENDENCE PRESENTLY ---- 127 METERS LONG BY 32 METERS BEAM--- DISPLACEMENT 2784 TONS---- 14 FT DRAFT === TO MAKE IT JOHNS 12 METER /40FT BOAT IT REQUIRES A SCALE OF 10.58 TO CONVERT --THEREFORE 127 X 32 X 2784 TONS DIVIDED BY 10.58 WOULD SCALE === 12M LONG --BEAM 3.02 WEIGHT 263 TONS DISPLACEMENT ??? HARDLY CORRECT --CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN regards Denis ----- Original Message ----- From: jhess314 - I've been searching through this forum looking for information about whether it is practical to build the hull of a cruising 35'-40' trimaran out of aluminum using the origami technique? So far I've only found a few references to aluminum trimarans, and none actually designed or built. I suppose that not finding anything definitive is an answer in itself, but I thought I'd ask anyway. I'm more interested in a tri that could carry the load the a cruiser would require, rather than being light and fast. Thanks, John [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24116|24077|2010-10-05 11:24:43|Mark Hamill|Re: Plans for Anchors|Ian Nicholson has a plan for an anchor he designed that won an award--called the Belfast Anchor--I think it was in his book "Designers Notebook" I have ordered from the library to confirm. One of the flukes could be unbolted so it could be used as a semi permanent mooring buoy anchor. The anchor could be made in a number of different weights I think. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24117|24114|2010-10-05 15:16:35|Denis Buggy|Re: aluminium Trimaran|DEAR MR ROTHWELL I HAVE OCCASIONALLY COME HOME EARLY MORNING AFTER A LONG DAY SOMEWHERE AND TO DO SOMETHING BEFORE I SLEEP WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO WORK I REPLY TO E MAILS WITH DISASTROUS RESULTS AS I AM NOT MYSELF AND I CRINGE A WEEK LATER WHEN I REVIEW THE RESULTS . MY SYMPATHIES TO YOU MR ROTHWELL AND STOP TAKING WHATEVER YOU ARE TAKING --------DENIS BUGGY ----- Original Message ----- From: SHANE ROTHWELL To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 3:09 PM Subject: [origamiboats] aluminium Trimaran John, If you are interested in cruising offshore, It might be a good idea to look into "Boats" This is often defined as a vessell that floats in water, carries people and cargo in a reasonably safe manor and most specifically, 'IS NOT RENOUNED FOR BREAKING UP AND IS MORE STABLE IN AN UPRIGHT POSITION THAN AN INVERTED ONE. If you feel you really must continue on this line of "thought", Please check out mentalmastrubation.com for a complete description of what you are looking for, but please, please spare us this crap will you. Thank you Re: aluminum trimaran? Posted by: "Denis Buggy" buggy@... deniswig Mon Oct 4, 2010 3:11 pm (PDT) DEAR JOHN AND ALL WITH A CLUE -- if I scale the USS independence to fit Johns request I get figures which make no sense to me maybe somebody can explain ------------ -- USS INDEPENDENCE PRESENTLY ---- 127 METERS LONG BY 32 METERS BEAM--- DISPLACEMENT 2784 TONS---- 14 FT DRAFT === TO MAKE IT JOHNS 12 METER /40FT BOAT IT REQUIRES A SCALE OF 10.58 TO CONVERT --THEREFORE 127 X 32 X 2784 TONS DIVIDED BY 10.58 WOULD SCALE === 12M LONG --BEAM 3.02 WEIGHT 263 TONS DISPLACEMENT ??? HARDLY CORRECT --CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN regards Denis ----- Original Message ----- From: jhess314 - I've been searching through this forum looking for information about whether it is practical to build the hull of a cruising 35'-40' trimaran out of aluminum using the origami technique? So far I've only found a few references to aluminum trimarans, and none actually designed or built. I suppose that not finding anything definitive is an answer in itself, but I thought I'd ask anyway. I'm more interested in a tri that could carry the load the a cruiser would require, rather than being light and fast. Thanks, John [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24118|23988|2010-10-05 15:34:56|Denis Buggy|Re: aluminum trimaran?|THANKS GARY FOR YOUR REPLY I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD SCALE 10.58 AND THEN 1000 --IS THE DISPLACEMENT NOT DEFINED BY THE RESULTING SCALED DOWN CRAFT REGARDLESS OF YOUR 1000 . THE ORIGINAL HAS MASSIVE TONNAGE OF FUEL FOR 40 KNOTS SPEED FOR 4000 MILES CHOPPERS AND 20 FULL SIZE CONTAINERS TRANSPORTED ON AN INTERNAL LIFT SYSTEM BETWEEN FLOORS ---IT IS ALWAYS GOING TO SCALE HEAVY EVEN THOUGH IT IS ALUMINIUM BUT 263 TONS IS STILL WAY OUT FOR A 40 FT VESSEL . REGARDS DENIS BUGGY ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary H. Lucas To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 3:50 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? Denis, The dimensions scale that way, but displacement is closer to the scaling of the volume of the hull. So you'd divide the displace by about 1000. This results in a displacement that is a little light, which I think makes sense because you are limited by how thin the hull materials can be, probably not 1/10th of the full size ship. Make sense? Gary H. Lucas From: Denis Buggy Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 6:11 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? DEAR JOHN AND ALL WITH A CLUE -- if I scale the USS independence to fit Johns request I get figures which make no sense to me maybe somebody can explain -------------- USS INDEPENDENCE PRESENTLY ---- 127 METERS LONG BY 32 METERS BEAM--- DISPLACEMENT 2784 TONS---- 14 FT DRAFT === TO MAKE IT JOHNS 12 METER /40FT BOAT IT REQUIRES A SCALE OF 10.58 TO CONVERT --THEREFORE 127 X 32 X 2784 TONS DIVIDED BY 10.58 WOULD SCALE === 12M LONG --BEAM 3.02 WEIGHT 263 TONS DISPLACEMENT ??? HARDLY CORRECT --CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN regards Denis ----- Original Message ----- From: jhess314 - I've been searching through this forum looking for information about whether it is practical to build the hull of a cruising 35'-40' trimaran out of aluminum using the origami technique? So far I've only found a few references to aluminum trimarans, and none actually designed or built. I suppose that not finding anything definitive is an answer in itself, but I thought I'd ask anyway. I'm more interested in a tri that could carry the load the a cruiser would require, rather than being light and fast. Thanks, John [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24119|23988|2010-10-05 15:57:02|j fisher|Re: aluminum trimaran?|Volume (displacement) is a cubed term. If you reduce each dimension by 10, the volume reduces by 10 X 10 X 10 or 1000. On 10/5/10, Denis Buggy wrote: > THANKS GARY FOR YOUR REPLY I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD SCALE 10.58 AND > THEN 1000 --IS THE DISPLACEMENT NOT DEFINED BY THE RESULTING SCALED DOWN > CRAFT REGARDLESS OF YOUR 1000 . > THE ORIGINAL HAS MASSIVE TONNAGE OF FUEL FOR 40 KNOTS SPEED FOR 4000 MILES > CHOPPERS AND 20 FULL SIZE CONTAINERS TRANSPORTED ON AN INTERNAL LIFT SYSTEM > BETWEEN FLOORS ---IT IS ALWAYS GOING TO SCALE HEAVY EVEN THOUGH IT IS > ALUMINIUM BUT 263 TONS IS STILL WAY OUT FOR A 40 FT VESSEL . REGARDS > DENIS BUGGY > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gary H. Lucas > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 3:50 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? > > > > Denis, > The dimensions scale that way, but displacement is closer to the scaling > of the volume of the hull. So you'd divide the displace by about 1000. This > results in a displacement that is a little light, which I think makes sense > because you are limited by how thin the hull materials can be, probably not > 1/10th of the full size ship. Make sense? > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Denis Buggy > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 6:11 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? > > DEAR JOHN AND ALL WITH A CLUE -- > > if I scale the USS independence to fit Johns request I get figures which > make no sense to me maybe somebody can explain -------------- > USS INDEPENDENCE PRESENTLY ---- 127 METERS LONG BY 32 METERS BEAM--- > DISPLACEMENT 2784 TONS---- 14 FT DRAFT === > TO MAKE IT JOHNS 12 METER /40FT BOAT IT REQUIRES A SCALE OF 10.58 TO > CONVERT --THEREFORE > > 127 X 32 X 2784 TONS DIVIDED BY 10.58 WOULD SCALE === 12M LONG --BEAM 3.02 > WEIGHT 263 TONS DISPLACEMENT ??? > HARDLY CORRECT --CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN regards Denis > ----- Original Message ----- > From: jhess314 > > - > > I've been searching through this forum looking for information about > whether it is practical to build the hull of a cruising 35'-40' trimaran out > of aluminum using the origami technique? So far I've only found a few > references to aluminum trimarans, and none actually designed or built. I > suppose that not finding anything definitive is an answer in itself, but I > thought I'd ask anyway. I'm more interested in a tri that could carry the > load the a cruiser would require, rather than being light and fast. > Thanks, > John > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > Gary H. Lucas > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > | 24120|23988|2010-10-05 15:58:23|wild_explorer|Re: aluminum trimaran?|This link should answer all questions about ship's model scaling. It was given to me by someone in this group about year ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similitude_of_ship_models| 24121|23988|2010-10-05 16:02:00|Paul Wilson|Re: aluminum trimaran?|I think the correct value is a cube of the scale factor since volume(displacement) is 3 dimensional. ie. if you double something, the scale factor for the volume is 2 cubed or 8. if you triple something, the scale factor is 3 cubed or 27. In your case, 10.58 cubed is 1184. Cheers, Paul On 10/6/2010 8:34 AM, Denis Buggy wrote: > > THANKS GARY FOR YOUR REPLY I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD SCALE > 10.58 AND THEN 1000 --IS THE DISPLACEMENT NOT DEFINED BY THE RESULTING > SCALED DOWN CRAFT REGARDLESS OF YOUR 1000 . > THE ORIGINAL HAS MASSIVE TONNAGE OF FUEL FOR 40 KNOTS SPEED FOR 4000 > MILES CHOPPERS AND 20 FULL SIZE CONTAINERS TRANSPORTED ON AN INTERNAL > LIFT SYSTEM BETWEEN FLOORS ---IT IS ALWAYS GOING TO SCALE HEAVY EVEN > THOUGH IT IS ALUMINIUM BUT 263 TONS IS STILL WAY OUT FOR A 40 FT > VESSEL . REGARDS DENIS BUGGY > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gary H. Lucas > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 3:50 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? > > Denis, > The dimensions scale that way, but displacement is closer to the > scaling of the volume of the hull. So you'd divide the displace by > about 1000. This results in a displacement that is a little light, > which I think makes sense because you are limited by how thin the hull > materials can be, probably not 1/10th of the full size ship. Make sense? > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Denis Buggy > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 6:11 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? > > DEAR JOHN AND ALL WITH A CLUE -- > > if I scale the USS independence to fit Johns request I get figures > which make no sense to me maybe somebody can explain -------------- > USS INDEPENDENCE PRESENTLY ---- 127 METERS LONG BY 32 METERS BEAM--- > DISPLACEMENT 2784 TONS---- 14 FT DRAFT === > TO MAKE IT JOHNS 12 METER /40FT BOAT IT REQUIRES A SCALE OF 10.58 TO > CONVERT --THEREFORE > > 127 X 32 X 2784 TONS DIVIDED BY 10.58 WOULD SCALE === 12M LONG --BEAM > 3.02 WEIGHT 263 TONS DISPLACEMENT ??? > HARDLY CORRECT --CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN regards Denis > ----- Original Message ----- > From: jhess314 > > - > > I've been searching through this forum looking for information about > whether it is practical to build the hull of a cruising 35'-40' > trimaran out of aluminum using the origami technique? So far I've only > found a few references to aluminum trimarans, and none actually > designed or built. I suppose that not finding anything definitive is > an answer in itself, but I thought I'd ask anyway. I'm more interested > in a tri that could carry the load the a cruiser would require, rather > than being light and fast. > Thanks, > John > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > Gary H. Lucas > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3177 - Release Date: 10/05/10 07:35:00 > | 24122|24114|2010-10-05 16:16:39|Matt Malone|Re: aluminium Trimaran|I never understood the question. The scaling of boats / ships has to take a number of things into account. If the question can be rephrased as, I want to do this and I have that, it might help me understand. It would also help if you took off the caps-lock Denis. Lower case letters were invented because they are easier to read. The pattern of ascenders and descenders allows one to recognize entire words at a glance and read faster. And we write for the reader. I would make some suggestions for Shane, but you have done that. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: buggy@... Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 20:16:32 +0100 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminium Trimaran DEAR MR ROTHWELL I HAVE OCCASIONALLY COME HOME EARLY MORNING AFTER A LONG DAY SOMEWHERE AND TO DO SOMETHING BEFORE I SLEEP WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO WORK I REPLY TO E MAILS WITH DISASTROUS RESULTS AS I AM NOT MYSELF AND I CRINGE A WEEK LATER WHEN I REVIEW THE RESULTS . MY SYMPATHIES TO YOU MR ROTHWELL AND STOP TAKING WHATEVER YOU ARE TAKING --------DENIS BUGGY ----- Original Message ----- From: SHANE ROTHWELL To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 3:09 PM Subject: [origamiboats] aluminium Trimaran John, If you are interested in cruising offshore, It might be a good idea to look into "Boats" This is often defined as a vessell that floats in water, carries people and cargo in a reasonably safe manor and most specifically, 'IS NOT RENOUNED FOR BREAKING UP AND IS MORE STABLE IN AN UPRIGHT POSITION THAN AN INVERTED ONE. If you feel you really must continue on this line of "thought", Please check out mentalmastrubation.com for a complete description of what you are looking for, but please, please spare us this crap will you. Thank you Re: aluminum trimaran? Posted by: "Denis Buggy" buggy@... deniswig Mon Oct 4, 2010 3:11 pm (PDT) DEAR JOHN AND ALL WITH A CLUE -- if I scale the USS independence to fit Johns request I get figures which make no sense to me maybe somebody can explain ------------ -- USS INDEPENDENCE PRESENTLY ---- 127 METERS LONG BY 32 METERS BEAM--- DISPLACEMENT 2784 TONS---- 14 FT DRAFT === TO MAKE IT JOHNS 12 METER /40FT BOAT IT REQUIRES A SCALE OF 10.58 TO CONVERT --THEREFORE 127 X 32 X 2784 TONS DIVIDED BY 10.58 WOULD SCALE === 12M LONG --BEAM 3.02 WEIGHT 263 TONS DISPLACEMENT ??? HARDLY CORRECT --CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN regards Denis ----- Original Message ----- From: jhess314 - I've been searching through this forum looking for information about whether it is practical to build the hull of a cruising 35'-40' trimaran out of aluminum using the origami technique? So far I've only found a few references to aluminum trimarans, and none actually designed or built. I suppose that not finding anything definitive is an answer in itself, but I thought I'd ask anyway. I'm more interested in a tri that could carry the load the a cruiser would require, rather than being light and fast. Thanks, John [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24123|23988|2010-10-05 16:22:52|Matt Malone|Re: aluminum trimaran?|I think I have an idea what you are saying now... Yes, scaling by displacement is better, but then, as Gary said, there is a limit to how thin certain materials can be -- so for smaller boats one is required to go to less dense, less strong materials, but make them thicker. For example, a rubber duck is nearly indestructible. Rotomoulded plastic is great up to a certain size, then fibreglass, then aluminum, then, finally, steel is a practical alternative. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: buggy@... Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 20:34:51 +0100 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? THANKS GARY FOR YOUR REPLY I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD SCALE 10.58 AND THEN 1000 --IS THE DISPLACEMENT NOT DEFINED BY THE RESULTING SCALED DOWN CRAFT REGARDLESS OF YOUR 1000 . THE ORIGINAL HAS MASSIVE TONNAGE OF FUEL FOR 40 KNOTS SPEED FOR 4000 MILES CHOPPERS AND 20 FULL SIZE CONTAINERS TRANSPORTED ON AN INTERNAL LIFT SYSTEM BETWEEN FLOORS ---IT IS ALWAYS GOING TO SCALE HEAVY EVEN THOUGH IT IS ALUMINIUM BUT 263 TONS IS STILL WAY OUT FOR A 40 FT VESSEL . REGARDS DENIS BUGGY ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary H. Lucas To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 3:50 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? Denis, The dimensions scale that way, but displacement is closer to the scaling of the volume of the hull. So you'd divide the displace by about 1000. This results in a displacement that is a little light, which I think makes sense because you are limited by how thin the hull materials can be, probably not 1/10th of the full size ship. Make sense? Gary H. Lucas From: Denis Buggy Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 6:11 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? DEAR JOHN AND ALL WITH A CLUE -- if I scale the USS independence to fit Johns request I get figures which make no sense to me maybe somebody can explain -------------- USS INDEPENDENCE PRESENTLY ---- 127 METERS LONG BY 32 METERS BEAM--- DISPLACEMENT 2784 TONS---- 14 FT DRAFT === TO MAKE IT JOHNS 12 METER /40FT BOAT IT REQUIRES A SCALE OF 10.58 TO CONVERT --THEREFORE 127 X 32 X 2784 TONS DIVIDED BY 10.58 WOULD SCALE === 12M LONG --BEAM 3.02 WEIGHT 263 TONS DISPLACEMENT ??? HARDLY CORRECT --CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN regards Denis ----- Original Message ----- From: jhess314 - I've been searching through this forum looking for information about whether it is practical to build the hull of a cruising 35'-40' trimaran out of aluminum using the origami technique? So far I've only found a few references to aluminum trimarans, and none actually designed or built. I suppose that not finding anything definitive is an answer in itself, but I thought I'd ask anyway. I'm more interested in a tri that could carry the load the a cruiser would require, rather than being light and fast. Thanks, John [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24124|24077|2010-10-05 17:33:03|Norm Moore|Re: Plans for Anchors|Spade used to make templates of their anchors available in PDF so you could piece together a drawing to check against your bow roller. Now you have to request them. I put a template for a Spade 60 I pulled down in the files section along with another PDF of the metric dimensions of all the Spade anchors. Enjoy. Norm Moore 559-645-5314 ________________________________ From: Doug Jackson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, October 4, 2010 7:32:23 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors Those are plans I drew from just looking at photos of anchors. It's not been built or tested. And thank you for the input about the hinge. The claim is that it lets the anchor move the direction of pull 180 degrees without pulling free. I think the best starting point is no-hinge and then consider it if needed. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: h To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, October 2, 2010 9:39:20 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors Nice, where'd you find those plans? looks like a nice easy to build fast setting anchor, I'd put a roll bar on the back of it though like they have on the rocnas just to flip it into the ground faster. Do you mean a hinge like on a CQR? I've never used one I have a delta which is pretty much a CQR without the hinge seems to work fine. I'm guessing the hinge is to take some of the strain of the shank when it has to pivot directions in the sand, otherwise I don't know why it's there, seems like it would just allow the anchor to drag side ways for longer when setting. I'd prefer not to have any moving parts if I can do without them, One could always weld the roll bar to the shank as well which would help to support it from twisting and spread the load out to the flukes more evenly. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > This is what I'm thinking about building: > http://www.submarineboat.com/images/sailboat/180%20pound%20Spade%20Anchor.jpg > > Is there a big advantage to putting that hinge in the shank? > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Doug Jackson > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 10:28:49 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > Thanks. That one is going on the list too. > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: h > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 1:14:36 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Plans for Anchors > > > http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php/topic,2207.0.html > > theres a picture of what I mean with the shank, one could make one hell of big > anchor as the fluke part doesn't have to be supper heavy with these spade style > > > anchors, at least theres no lead in them, I like the rocna style better with >the > > roll bar but the way they have the shank removable on these anchors would be > easy to do and it'd allow you to store your 200 lbs anchor in the bilge without > > > the shank getting in the way. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > Thanks for the ideas Paul. A bolt together Bulwagga will be perfect. > > Especially considering we need them in the 100+ pound size. > > > > > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Paul Wilson > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wed, September 29, 2010 6:18:11 PM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Plans for Anchors > > > > I thought I had the dimensions of a Delta but can't seem to find them. > > The Bulwagga anchor would be very simple to build. I think you could > > easily build one that bolted together for storage below as an emergency > > spare or hurricane anchor. They get pretty good reviews but > > unfortunately won't go on a bow roller. > > > > http://www.azuremarine.com/e1en/groups/historical/Bulwagga/dimensions.htm > > > > http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/new-gen-boat-anchors-explained.php > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > On 9/30/2010 10:47 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > > > Does anybody have plans for building anchors? > > > > > > Thanks > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3166 - Release Date: 09/29/10 > > >18:37:00 > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24125|23988|2010-10-05 17:44:37|Norm Moore|Re: aluminum trimaran?|Law of Mechanical Similitude - works for boats that are the same in form. Based on designed water line length (DWL). Speed varies as the square root of DWL Beam,, draft, and length overall vary as the DWL (1:1) Sail area and wetted surface vary as the square of DWL Displacement varies as the cube of DWL Heeling moment of wind pressure on sails varies as the cube of DWL Resisitance vareis as the cube of the DWL Stability varies as the fourth power of DWL Moment of inertia varies as the fifth power of DWL This is inSkene's Elements of Yacht Design pg 38 I hesitated to quote it, since it probably conjures up bad memories of Pipe Dream from Brent's past... Norm Moore 559-645-5314 ________________________________ From: Matt Malone To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, October 5, 2010 1:22:41 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? I think I have an idea what you are saying now... Yes, scaling by displacement is better, but then, as Gary said, there is a limit to how thin certain materials can be -- so for smaller boats one is required to go to less dense, less strong materials, but make them thicker. For example, a rubber duck is nearly indestructible. Rotomoulded plastic is great up to a certain size, then fibreglass, then aluminum, then, finally, steel is a practical alternative. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: buggy@... Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 20:34:51 +0100 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? THANKS GARY FOR YOUR REPLY I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD SCALE 10.58 AND THEN 1000 --IS THE DISPLACEMENT NOT DEFINED BY THE RESULTING SCALED DOWN CRAFT REGARDLESS OF YOUR 1000 . THE ORIGINAL HAS MASSIVE TONNAGE OF FUEL FOR 40 KNOTS SPEED FOR 4000 MILES CHOPPERS AND 20 FULL SIZE CONTAINERS TRANSPORTED ON AN INTERNAL LIFT SYSTEM BETWEEN FLOORS ---IT IS ALWAYS GOING TO SCALE HEAVY EVEN THOUGH IT IS ALUMINIUM BUT 263 TONS IS STILL WAY OUT FOR A 40 FT VESSEL . REGARDS DENIS BUGGY ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary H. Lucas To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 3:50 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? Denis, The dimensions scale that way, but displacement is closer to the scaling of the volume of the hull. So you'd divide the displace by about 1000. This results in a displacement that is a little light, which I think makes sense because you are limited by how thin the hull materials can be, probably not 1/10th of the full size ship. Make sense? Gary H. Lucas From: Denis Buggy Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 6:11 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? DEAR JOHN AND ALL WITH A CLUE -- if I scale the USS independence to fit Johns request I get figures which make no sense to me maybe somebody can explain -------------- USS INDEPENDENCE PRESENTLY ---- 127 METERS LONG BY 32 METERS BEAM--- DISPLACEMENT 2784 TONS---- 14 FT DRAFT === TO MAKE IT JOHNS 12 METER /40FT BOAT IT REQUIRES A SCALE OF 10.58 TO CONVERT --THEREFORE 127 X 32 X 2784 TONS DIVIDED BY 10.58 WOULD SCALE === 12M LONG --BEAM 3.02 WEIGHT 263 TONS DISPLACEMENT ??? HARDLY CORRECT --CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN regards Denis ----- Original Message ----- From: jhess314 - I've been searching through this forum looking for information about whether it is practical to build the hull of a cruising 35'-40' trimaran out of aluminum using the origami technique? So far I've only found a few references to aluminum trimarans, and none actually designed or built. I suppose that not finding anything definitive is an answer in itself, but I thought I'd ask anyway. I'm more interested in a tri that could carry the load the a cruiser would require, rather than being light and fast. Thanks, John [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24126|23988|2010-10-05 17:49:09|Ben Okopnik|Re: aluminum trimaran?|On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:22:41PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > I think I have an idea what you are saying now... > > Yes, scaling by displacement is better, but then, as Gary said, there > is a limit to how thin certain materials can be -- so for smaller > boats one is required to go to less dense, less strong materials, but > make them thicker. For example, a rubber duck is nearly > indestructible. Rotomoulded plastic is great up to a certain size, > then fibreglass, then aluminum, then, finally, steel is a practical > alternative. Matt, I agree with your general take on this - but I don't know that the above is a reasonable progression; I suspect that you could easily skip fiberglass and maybe even aluminum in those steps (maybe branching Al off as a parallel option, somewhat equivalent to steel, would work better.) E.g., you could make a rotomolded boat up to, say, 20'; in fact, here's a manufacturer who makes them up to 23': http://www.samboats.com/ After that, as I recall, the smallest Brentboat isn't much bigger than that - and other steel boats have been made in that size or smaller. The only reason that fiberglass boats are built at all is the manufacturer's ease of construction and low cost (you don't have to hire any welders or carpenters to build one; cheap, ignorant laborers can spray up a hull), as well as their desire to create a market (and never mind that people are going to die because they've traded away safety for price, something that's invisible to the layman.) In my opinion, fiberglass is a catastrophically unsafe material for boat-building - when lined up with rotomolding and steel, it is the only one of the three that will shatter or at least break through if it hits something at speed (which boats do all too often.) This is like buying a car that explodes when you hit something - but, hey, it's cheap, it's transportation, and you really, really promise to be careful! *BOATS SHOULD FLOAT, NOT SINK* - and we have materials and techniques that allow us to build such boats, and have had them for well over a hundred years (here, I'm speaking of reasonable-sized pleasure boats; those scaling factors under discussion make the average freighter, or something the size of the Titanic, impossible to build with that sort of strength.) Not to offend those with fiberglass boats, but - anything that can't put up with running into a half-sunk floating container or underwater rocks at 5kt without being destroyed is not a sea-worthy boat in my opinion. Feel free to think of me as being paranoid if it makes you more comfortable. :) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24127|23988|2010-10-05 19:12:33|h|Re: aluminum trimaran?|Maybe this will cure your paranoia, ben go here and search for "mingming test" http://www.thesimplesailor.com/articles.html --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:22:41PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > I think I have an idea what you are saying now... > > > > Yes, scaling by displacement is better, but then, as Gary said, there > > is a limit to how thin certain materials can be -- so for smaller > > boats one is required to go to less dense, less strong materials, but > > make them thicker. For example, a rubber duck is nearly > > indestructible. Rotomoulded plastic is great up to a certain size, > > then fibreglass, then aluminum, then, finally, steel is a practical > > alternative. > > Matt, I agree with your general take on this - but I don't know that the > above is a reasonable progression; I suspect that you could easily skip > fiberglass and maybe even aluminum in those steps (maybe branching Al > off as a parallel option, somewhat equivalent to steel, would work > better.) E.g., you could make a rotomolded boat up to, say, 20'; in > fact, here's a manufacturer who makes them up to 23': > > http://www.samboats.com/ > > After that, as I recall, the smallest Brentboat isn't much bigger than > that - and other steel boats have been made in that size or smaller. > > The only reason that fiberglass boats are built at all is the > manufacturer's ease of construction and low cost (you don't have to hire > any welders or carpenters to build one; cheap, ignorant laborers can > spray up a hull), as well as their desire to create a market (and never > mind that people are going to die because they've traded away safety for > price, something that's invisible to the layman.) > > In my opinion, fiberglass is a catastrophically unsafe material for > boat-building - when lined up with rotomolding and steel, it is the only > one of the three that will shatter or at least break through if it hits > something at speed (which boats do all too often.) This is like buying a > car that explodes when you hit something - but, hey, it's cheap, it's > transportation, and you really, really promise to be careful! > > *BOATS SHOULD FLOAT, NOT SINK* - and we have materials and techniques > that allow us to build such boats, and have had them for well over a > hundred years (here, I'm speaking of reasonable-sized pleasure boats; > those scaling factors under discussion make the average freighter, or > something the size of the Titanic, impossible to build with that sort of > strength.) > > Not to offend those with fiberglass boats, but - anything that can't put > up with running into a half-sunk floating container or underwater rocks > at 5kt without being destroyed is not a sea-worthy boat in my opinion. > Feel free to think of me as being paranoid if it makes you more > comfortable. :) > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > | 24128|23988|2010-10-05 19:48:49|Gary H. Lucas|Re: aluminum trimaran?|Denis, Compare a 20 footer and 40 footer. It's twice as long and twice as wide, so it has four times the deck area. It also twice as tall, making the volume 8 times as much. Look at the displacement of the typical 20 footer and compare to the typical 40 footer, it's way more than 2 times, closer to 8 times in many cases. Gary H. Lucas From: Denis Buggy Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 3:34 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? THANKS GARY FOR YOUR REPLY I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD SCALE 10.58 AND THEN 1000 --IS THE DISPLACEMENT NOT DEFINED BY THE RESULTING SCALED DOWN CRAFT REGARDLESS OF YOUR 1000 . THE ORIGINAL HAS MASSIVE TONNAGE OF FUEL FOR 40 KNOTS SPEED FOR 4000 MILES CHOPPERS AND 20 FULL SIZE CONTAINERS TRANSPORTED ON AN INTERNAL LIFT SYSTEM BETWEEN FLOORS ---IT IS ALWAYS GOING TO SCALE HEAVY EVEN THOUGH IT IS ALUMINIUM BUT 263 TONS IS STILL WAY OUT FOR A 40 FT VESSEL . REGARDS DENIS BUGGY ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary H. Lucas To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 3:50 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? Denis, The dimensions scale that way, but displacement is closer to the scaling of the volume of the hull. So you'd divide the displace by about 1000. This results in a displacement that is a little light, which I think makes sense because you are limited by how thin the hull materials can be, probably not 1/10th of the full size ship. Make sense? Gary H. Lucas From: Denis Buggy Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 6:11 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? DEAR JOHN AND ALL WITH A CLUE -- if I scale the USS independence to fit Johns request I get figures which make no sense to me maybe somebody can explain -------------- USS INDEPENDENCE PRESENTLY ---- 127 METERS LONG BY 32 METERS BEAM--- DISPLACEMENT 2784 TONS---- 14 FT DRAFT === TO MAKE IT JOHNS 12 METER /40FT BOAT IT REQUIRES A SCALE OF 10.58 TO CONVERT --THEREFORE 127 X 32 X 2784 TONS DIVIDED BY 10.58 WOULD SCALE === 12M LONG --BEAM 3.02 WEIGHT 263 TONS DISPLACEMENT ??? HARDLY CORRECT --CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN regards Denis ----- Original Message ----- From: jhess314 - I've been searching through this forum looking for information about whether it is practical to build the hull of a cruising 35'-40' trimaran out of aluminum using the origami technique? So far I've only found a few references to aluminum trimarans, and none actually designed or built. I suppose that not finding anything definitive is an answer in itself, but I thought I'd ask anyway. I'm more interested in a tri that could carry the load the a cruiser would require, rather than being light and fast. Thanks, John [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24129|23988|2010-10-05 21:55:14|David Frantz|Re: aluminum trimaran?|Ben; Isn't this just a bit overboard? I realize this is a pro steel boat forum but this sounds like the same propoganda that is used to attack Origami designs. There isn't a year that goes by that I don't hear of a steel boat being sunk as a result if striking something. Obviously if I didn't believe that a steel boat was better for my needs I wouldn't bother to take an interest in this site. However I don't at the same time dismiss Fiberglass or other materials. Properly implemented any of the common materials can result in a safe boat. It is just that few materials are as easy to implement for the amature builder. Finally Fiberglass isn't exactly cheap! At least not as a DIY venture. David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Oct 5, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:22:41PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: >> >> I think I have an idea what you are saying now... >> >> Yes, scaling by displacement is better, but then, as Gary said, there >> is a limit to how thin certain materials can be -- so for smaller >> boats one is required to go to less dense, less strong materials, but >> make them thicker. For example, a rubber duck is nearly >> indestructible. Rotomoulded plastic is great up to a certain size, >> then fibreglass, then aluminum, then, finally, steel is a practical >> alternative. > > Matt, I agree with your general take on this - but I don't know that the > above is a reasonable progression; I suspect that you could easily skip > fiberglass and maybe even aluminum in those steps (maybe branching Al > off as a parallel option, somewhat equivalent to steel, would work > better.) E.g., you could make a rotomolded boat up to, say, 20'; in > fact, here's a manufacturer who makes them up to 23': > > http://www.samboats.com/ > > After that, as I recall, the smallest Brentboat isn't much bigger than > that - and other steel boats have been made in that size or smaller. > > The only reason that fiberglass boats are built at all is the > manufacturer's ease of construction and low cost (you don't have to hire > any welders or carpenters to build one; cheap, ignorant laborers can > spray up a hull), as well as their desire to create a market (and never > mind that people are going to die because they've traded away safety for > price, something that's invisible to the layman.) > > In my opinion, fiberglass is a catastrophically unsafe material for > boat-building - when lined up with rotomolding and steel, it is the only > one of the three that will shatter or at least break through if it hits > something at speed (which boats do all too often.) This is like buying a > car that explodes when you hit something - but, hey, it's cheap, it's > transportation, and you really, really promise to be careful! > > *BOATS SHOULD FLOAT, NOT SINK* - and we have materials and techniques > that allow us to build such boats, and have had them for well over a > hundred years (here, I'm speaking of reasonable-sized pleasure boats; > those scaling factors under discussion make the average freighter, or > something the size of the Titanic, impossible to build with that sort of > strength.) > > Not to offend those with fiberglass boats, but - anything that can't put > up with running into a half-sunk floating container or underwater rocks > at 5kt without being destroyed is not a sea-worthy boat in my opinion. > Feel free to think of me as being paranoid if it makes you more > comfortable. :) > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24130|23988|2010-10-05 23:34:10|Matt Malone|Re: aluminum trimaran?|Ben, I wish I could show you the videos of my experiments with fibreglass, steel and blast-loading. The steel ripped, and wok'd, the fibreglass, layup of unidirectional fibers +/-60 degrees I think, stiff to the touch, flapped like a sheet in the high speed photography, but did not rip or stay permanently deflected. This is what is possible for a properly engineered composite. I entirely agree that cheap spray-boats are little more than stiffened plastic. 100 sprayed fibreglass boats from the same mould can be made cheaper and more hydrodynamic than any one-off boat method. That is why they exist. Do not confuse these with properly engineered composite boats. If kevlar was not so bad for osmosis, I would take kevlar over steel any day. But then there is cost... steel is just so cheap compared to the alternatives. My current two fibreglass boats, are both solid (not cored) continuous-mat layups, and were both made before the the oil embargo. I am reasonably confident one of them would pass the Mingming-test because no human could make a hole through it below the waterline with a sledgehammer, it is that thick and flexible. An axe or pick, yes, not a sledge. There are some properly made composite boats out there, and I agree a lot of crap. There is no question, to build a properly engineered composite boat of S-glass fibres today would cost far more than a Brent boat. Aluminum from a marine standpoint is a far superior material to steel. Lower density and lower modulus in proportion mean double the thickness so the sheet buckling stiffness of an aluminum boat is 8 times that of a steel boat. If I had the money, I would fold up an aluminum orgami tomorrow. If I had a lot of money and wanted to have a yacht twice the size it would be Monel. But the cost. And the cost to weld either aluminum or Monel. Again, the steel Brent boat is an acme of bang for the buck. But if we are talking bang for the buck, there are some very old, very well built fibreglass boats out there that have been blue-water cruising for 40, and 50 years, and some of them have no osmosis, and have passed the real-world Mingming-test of rocks and floating debris. I would not be so quick to scoff at these boats, nor would I step into a boat (or car for that matter) made in the early 1980s, without investigating it thoroughly. We are now going on 30 years of nearly all fibreglass boats built being as inexpense products, not well-founded vessels. If I were an inch tall, I would ride around the world in a rubber bathtub duck because I do not believe there is anything that weather, waves and rocks could do other than temporarily collapse it. In their proper use, all materials have a niche. The more I look at the steel / orgami method, the more I am convinced it is the only way to build a boat from scratch on a budget. That is a powerful niche. One does not have to denigrate the other pinnacles of design out there that use other materials and use them properly. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:48:59 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:22:41PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > I think I have an idea what you are saying now... > > Yes, scaling by displacement is better, but then, as Gary said, there > is a limit to how thin certain materials can be -- so for smaller > boats one is required to go to less dense, less strong materials, but > make them thicker. For example, a rubber duck is nearly > indestructible. Rotomoulded plastic is great up to a certain size, > then fibreglass, then aluminum, then, finally, steel is a practical > alternative. Matt, I agree with your general take on this - but I don't know that the above is a reasonable progression; I suspect that you could easily skip fiberglass and maybe even aluminum in those steps (maybe branching Al off as a parallel option, somewhat equivalent to steel, would work better.) E.g., you could make a rotomolded boat up to, say, 20'; in fact, here's a manufacturer who makes them up to 23': http://www.samboats.com/ After that, as I recall, the smallest Brentboat isn't much bigger than that - and other steel boats have been made in that size or smaller. The only reason that fiberglass boats are built at all is the manufacturer's ease of construction and low cost (you don't have to hire any welders or carpenters to build one; cheap, ignorant laborers can spray up a hull), as well as their desire to create a market (and never mind that people are going to die because they've traded away safety for price, something that's invisible to the layman.) In my opinion, fiberglass is a catastrophically unsafe material for boat-building - when lined up with rotomolding and steel, it is the only one of the three that will shatter or at least break through if it hits something at speed (which boats do all too often.) This is like buying a car that explodes when you hit something - but, hey, it's cheap, it's transportation, and you really, really promise to be careful! *BOATS SHOULD FLOAT, NOT SINK* - and we have materials and techniques that allow us to build such boats, and have had them for well over a hundred years (here, I'm speaking of reasonable-sized pleasure boats; those scaling factors under discussion make the average freighter, or something the size of the Titanic, impossible to build with that sort of strength.) Not to offend those with fiberglass boats, but - anything that can't put up with running into a half-sunk floating container or underwater rocks at 5kt without being destroyed is not a sea-worthy boat in my opinion. Feel free to think of me as being paranoid if it makes you more comfortable. :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24131|23988|2010-10-05 23:36:14|Ben Okopnik|Re: aluminum trimaran?|On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 09:35:49PM -0400, David Frantz wrote: > Ben; > > Isn't this just a bit overboard? I realize this is a pro steel boat > forum but this sounds like the same propoganda that is used to attack > Origami designs. David: take a piece of steel - say, a foot square by 1/8". Take the same made of, say, polypropylene or polyethylene. Then take a chunk of fiberglass of the same size. Quiz: if you had a hammer, which is the only one you'd be able to break? Go ahead and double the thickness for the fiberglass. No, quadruple it. You'll still be able to shatter it to pieces in a minute or two. Is there anything about this that's unclear to you? Incidentally - you should learn what the word "propaganda" (spelled with an 'a', not an 'o') means before using it again. Take a look at http://www.websters-online-dictionary.com/ , for example - then, feel free to point out what cause I'm promoting. (HINT: Expressing an opinion, even a strong one, is not propaganda.) Using words you don't understand makes you look ignorant. I don't know if that matters to you, but if it does, you should restrain yourself. > There isn't a year that goes by that I don't hear > of a steel boat being sunk as a result if striking something. Speaking of propaganda... the above sentence is about as bad as it gets. Feel free to name, say, 5 steel boats, of the size that I explicitly specified, that sank in the last 5 years as a result of striking something. I seriously doubt that you'll find that many - but I'll bet you anything that I'll find, say, 50 to 1 as many FRP boats that went down in the same time. Maybe even 100 to 1. I have to say that I'm somewhat surprised that anyone could disagree - but then, I note that you have absolutely zero backing for your disagreement beyond emotional arguments. "Propaganda", "isn't a year that goes by"... got any actual statistics, or even simple thought experiments like the one I gave just above? I'd be fascinated to see you come up with something - anything - that proves fiberglass to be even nearly as safe as wood (it's not; FRP is frangible where wood had a tremendous amount of elasticity.) > Obviously if I didn't believe that a steel boat was better for my > needs I wouldn't bother to take an interest in this site. However I > don't at the same time dismiss Fiberglass or other materials. Whether you dismiss them or not isn't the issue. Can you actually prove that fiberglass is anywhere nearly as impact-resistant as any of the standard rotomolded materials or common boat-building metals? The answer is NO. So, other than your emotion-based arguments, what do you actually have? > Properly implemented any of the common materials can result in a safe > boat. Yes - you could build a 30' boat out of, say, 2"-thick fiberglass, at which point it would be able to take a reasonably hard impact. Unfortunately, at that point, it would no longer be a boat that can be reasonably powered by sails or even a motor: it would be something like a heavy raft, and no one would buy it. There's no possible "proper" implementation that can make fiberglass nearly as safe as either of the materials I've cited _and_ allow you to make a workable craft out of it - certainly not a sailboat. > It is just that few materials are as easy to implement for the > amature builder. > > Finally Fiberglass isn't exactly cheap! At least not as a DIY venture. [sigh] David, I wish you'd actually *read* what I wrote before responding to it all in a fever to prove me wrong. Look, I'll cite from the very email that was at the bottom of your response: > > The only reason that fiberglass boats are built at all is the > > manufacturer's ease of construction and low cost (you don't have to hire ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > any welders or carpenters to build one; cheap, ignorant laborers can > > spray up a hull), as well as their desire to create a market (and never ^^^^^ > > mind that people are going to die because they've traded away safety for > > price, something that's invisible to the layman.) 99.9%+ of all fiberglass boats are not built as DIY ventures; they're sprayed up with a chopped-mat gun at production facilities, and they're dirt-cheap once you've built the mold. The driving factor, as I've said, is the ability to turn out cheap boats with a bare nod to something that looks like "safe enough"; my point is that boats built that way are trading safety, and thus human lives, for profit. Steel and rotomolded boats are built with a huge reserve of safety with regard to hull strength - which takes that main, over-riding, #1 vulnerability almost completely out of the picture. In addition, steel is quite fire- resistant, whereas fiberglass is essentially frozen gasoline (I shot a series of pictures of a fiberglass boat when it caught on fire; it was a ball of flame from the waterline up in under 90 seconds.) If you ever have a *real* argument or fact to set against this - I'm sorry, but "it makes me feel bad to see you pan my fiberglass boat" doesn't qualify - I'd love to hear it. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24132|23988|2010-10-05 23:54:44|Ben Okopnik|Re: aluminum trimaran?|On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 11:12:32PM -0000, h wrote: > Maybe this will cure your paranoia, ben go here and search for "mingming test" > > http://www.thesimplesailor.com/articles.html [laugh] I love it. And I agree with him: I myself would never go to sea in a yacht that did not pass the Mingming Test. I can't understand why it's not mandatory for every new-build to be unsinkable. Easy enough to do with today's lightweight, high-volume designs. Of course, if you can't bash the hole in the first place, then you pass with flying colors. Hence, steel. [grin] I also quote, from that same page: [...] as I have argued many times, nothing but nothing can be too strong for a sea-going yacht. My point, made clear as day. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24133|23988|2010-10-06 00:18:52|Ben Okopnik|Re: aluminum trimaran?|On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 11:34:08PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > Ben, I wish I could show you the videos of my experiments with > fibreglass, steel and blast-loading. The steel ripped, and wok'd, > the fibreglass, layup of unidirectional fibers +/-60 degrees I think, > stiff to the touch, flapped like a sheet in the high speed > photography, but did not rip or stay permanently deflected. This is > what is possible for a properly engineered composite. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [grin] Matt, that's not exactly what I'd call a fair test. I'll guarantee you that a properly-engineered steel shape would stand up to your test perfectly well. > I entirely > agree that cheap spray-boats are little more than stiffened plastic. > 100 sprayed fibreglass boats from the same mould can be made cheaper > and more hydrodynamic than any one-off boat method. That is why they > exist. Do not confuse these with properly engineered composite boats. That's not an unreasonable statement - but a piece of steel doesn't take any special engineering to have its strength. And if we're talking apples vs. apples, then engineered steel shapes are even far stronger that, at which point, no matter what you do with fiberglass, you can't even come close to it. There are definitely good uses for fiberglass - you'll never hear me argue anything else. But CSM used for boat hulls is, in my opinion, a dangerous practice driven by nothing but the profit motive, and takes advantage of ignorance. > If kevlar was not so bad for osmosis, I would take kevlar over steel > any day. But then there is cost... steel is just so cheap compared to > the alternatives. And there's part of my point: when you compare properly-built boats, steel is significantly cheaper. It's only when you build the cheapest piece of crap you can that FRP "wins" on price. To me, a boat is like a piece of life-saving equipment. When you need it, do you _really_ want it to have been built by the lowest bidder? > My current two fibreglass boats, are both solid (not cored) > continuous-mat layups, and were both made before the the oil embargo. > I am reasonably confident one of them would pass the Mingming-test > because no human could make a hole through it below the waterline with > a sledgehammer, it is that thick and flexible. An axe or pick, yes, > not a sledge. I think that this is a fair level of strength to aim for in a boat - but there aren't any boats like that built today, at least not under $1M or so. Steel gives you that level of protection and more. > Aluminum from a marine standpoint is a far superior material to steel. > Lower density and lower modulus in proportion mean double the > thickness so the sheet buckling stiffness of an aluminum boat is 8 > times that of a steel boat. If I had the money, I would fold up an > aluminum orgami tomorrow. If I had a lot of money and wanted to have > a yacht twice the size it would be Monel. But the cost. And the cost > to weld either aluminum or Monel. Again, the steel Brent boat is an > acme of bang for the buck. Yep. I'm quite familiar with the arguments for aluminum and Monel - but there's the difficulty of welding either one, and getting repairs done in out-of-the-way places. For hull strength, however, both certainly pass my test. > In their proper use, all materials have a niche. The more I look at > the steel / orgami method, the more I am convinced it is the only way > to build a boat from scratch on a budget. That is a powerful niche. > One does not have to denigrate the other pinnacles of design out there > that use other materials and use them properly. My description explicitly applies to mass-produced fiberglass boats; there's not a single one built today that I'd trust at sea. On the other hand, I wouldn't hesitate to take, say, an 1965 Pearson out into blue water; those were well-built boats, before insane greed kicked in. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24134|23988|2010-10-06 12:05:13|Matt Malone|For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic|Ben Wrote: >My description explicitly applies to mass-produced fiberglass boats; >there's not a single one built today that I'd trust at sea. On the other >hand, I wouldn't hesitate to take, say, an 1965 Pearson out into blue >water; those were well-built boats, before insane greed kicked in. Then we are in agreement Ben. After 3 years of looking for classic plastic at a good price, and considering steel, I came across the Brent method and was thoroughly convinced, if I could not get classic plastic in good condition, I was going orgami and steel. For a year, I was pricing, sourcing, and calculating in steel. I was thinking of where and how I would weld. Then, I got very lucky. It so happens in May, I bought boat #4, made in 1957, (by the same builder who made boats and later planes for the US military) before the moulds were sold to Pearson, and Pearson started banging them out slightly more cheaply through the early 1960s. Pearson shaved off about 1.5-2 tons of fibreglass. They also reduced the freshwater tank from the original 740 liters. It is true they improved the interior layout -- but that can be redone with some plywood and a saw. It is sailable now, the motor is rebuilt and running. Yes, I will sand and redo the bottom now, though I could put it off for years. And I will sand and redo the interior some. I will throw away the head, and maybe make one of Brent's composting toilets. .... Really, there is no optional work in this boat that I was not already staring down as manditory work with a orgami-steel boat. And it was half the price of the STEEL for a Brent boat. I got very lucky, but I have been looking carefully for 4 years to find the right hull. I understand most people do not have that amount of time to wait. I have it on the hard in my backyard now, so I am paying zero to have it. I might as well get any below-the-water-line work out of the way now, and then never take it out of the water for another 35 years, like the previous owner did. Only marine aluminum and Monel can do that. I would not hesitate to careen this boat on sand, or a mud-flat. That and a quart-jug of epoxy, and a rasp will fix rock-rash. Yes a new steel boat of the same length could have a lot more interior room (like new fibreglass boats), but at the cost of a less sea-kindly shape so on this I have made a choice that the market has proven many times over that others might make differently. Sorry that I have been lurking on this forum now for more than 5 months, after knowing I had found my boat, and it was not steel. I have been picking up excellent tips for every other boat system that I will have to look at. I did have to weld up about one ton of steel to lift the 11 tons of fibreglass off the transport, and I really did enjoy the hours of welding-towards-bluewater-boat-ownership aspect of it. It really felt like I was doing something big, with a great sense of accomplishment. I am kind of disappointed that I will miss the opportunity to do a new orgami hull. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24135|23988|2010-10-06 13:48:10|martin demers|Re: For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic|Matt, what model of boat is yours? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: m_j_malone@... Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 12:04:58 -0400 Subject: [origamiboats] For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic Ben Wrote: >My description explicitly applies to mass-produced fiberglass boats; >there's not a single one built today that I'd trust at sea. On the other >hand, I wouldn't hesitate to take, say, an 1965 Pearson out into blue >water; those were well-built boats, before insane greed kicked in. Then we are in agreement Ben. After 3 years of looking for classic plastic at a good price, and considering steel, I came across the Brent method and was thoroughly convinced, if I could not get classic plastic in good condition, I was going orgami and steel. For a year, I was pricing, sourcing, and calculating in steel. I was thinking of where and how I would weld. Then, I got very lucky. It so happens in May, I bought boat #4, made in 1957, (by the same builder who made boats and later planes for the US military) before the moulds were sold to Pearson, and Pearson started banging them out slightly more cheaply through the early 1960s. Pearson shaved off about 1.5-2 tons of fibreglass. They also reduced the freshwater tank from the original 740 liters. It is true they improved the interior layout -- but that can be redone with some plywood and a saw. It is sailable now, the motor is rebuilt and running. Yes, I will sand and redo the bottom now, though I could put it off for years. And I will sand and redo the interior some. I will throw away the head, and maybe make one of Brent's composting toilets. .... Really, there is no optional work in this boat that I was not already staring down as manditory work with a orgami-steel boat. And it was half the price of the STEEL for a Brent boat. I got very lucky, but I have been looking carefully for 4 years to find the right hull. I understand most people do not have that amount of time to wait. I have it on the hard in my backyard now, so I am paying zero to have it. I might as well get any below-the-water-line work out of the way now, and then never take it out of the water for another 35 years, like the previous owner did. Only marine aluminum and Monel can do that. I would not hesitate to careen this boat on sand, or a mud-flat. That and a quart-jug of epoxy, and a rasp will fix rock-rash. Yes a new steel boat of the same length could have a lot more interior room (like new fibreglass boats), but at the cost of a less sea-kindly shape so on this I have made a choice that the market has proven many times over that others might make differently. Sorry that I have been lurking on this forum now for more than 5 months, after knowing I had found my boat, and it was not steel. I have been picking up excellent tips for every other boat system that I will have to look at. I did have to weld up about one ton of steel to lift the 11 tons of fibreglass off the transport, and I really did enjoy the hours of welding-towards-bluewater-boat-ownership aspect of it. It really felt like I was doing something big, with a great sense of accomplishment. I am kind of disappointed that I will miss the opportunity to do a new orgami hull. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24136|23988|2010-10-06 15:57:05|Matt Malone|Re: For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic|The boat I bought is a Rhodes Bounty II 41: http://astro.temple.edu/~bstavis/pr/bountyII.htm When Grumman bought out the manufacturer, Coleman/Aeromarine, and also bought Pearson, the moulds were transferred to Pearson and the next year Pearson started building the Pearson Rhodes 41 Matt > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:48:01 -0400 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic > > > Matt, > what model of boat is yours? > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24137|23988|2010-10-06 17:24:15|brentswain38|Re: aluminum trimaran?|Tie a piece of steel wire in knot. Now try the same with a piece of fibreglass. Steel can stretch to 1.4 time it's original length before breaking. With other materials, that number is practically zero. It's this elasticity which enables steel to survive on a rocky lee shore, with only dents, where other materials would have had holes. This is even more true of origami boats, where the hull will spring back to it's original shape over and over again, where a framed hull would have it's plate wrapped around the frames, resulting in far greater denting. Aluminium would have many broken welds. If I were rich,I'd go steel up to the deck cabin joint, and aluminium for the cabin and wheelhouse. I hear the coastguard has been doing a lot of boats that way lately. Gives you the benefits of both. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 11:34:08PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Ben, I wish I could show you the videos of my experiments with > > fibreglass, steel and blast-loading. The steel ripped, and wok'd, > > the fibreglass, layup of unidirectional fibers +/-60 degrees I think, > > stiff to the touch, flapped like a sheet in the high speed > > photography, but did not rip or stay permanently deflected. This is > > what is possible for a properly engineered composite. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > [grin] Matt, that's not exactly what I'd call a fair test. I'll > guarantee you that a properly-engineered steel shape would stand up to > your test perfectly well. > > > I entirely > > agree that cheap spray-boats are little more than stiffened plastic. > > 100 sprayed fibreglass boats from the same mould can be made cheaper > > and more hydrodynamic than any one-off boat method. That is why they > > exist. Do not confuse these with properly engineered composite boats. > > That's not an unreasonable statement - but a piece of steel doesn't take > any special engineering to have its strength. And if we're talking > apples vs. apples, then engineered steel shapes are even far stronger > that, at which point, no matter what you do with fiberglass, you can't > even come close to it. > > There are definitely good uses for fiberglass - you'll never hear me > argue anything else. But CSM used for boat hulls is, in my opinion, a > dangerous practice driven by nothing but the profit motive, and takes > advantage of ignorance. > > > If kevlar was not so bad for osmosis, I would take kevlar over steel > > any day. But then there is cost... steel is just so cheap compared to > > the alternatives. > > And there's part of my point: when you compare properly-built boats, > steel is significantly cheaper. It's only when you build the cheapest > piece of crap you can that FRP "wins" on price. > > To me, a boat is like a piece of life-saving equipment. When you need > it, do you _really_ want it to have been built by the lowest bidder? > > > My current two fibreglass boats, are both solid (not cored) > > continuous-mat layups, and were both made before the the oil embargo. > > I am reasonably confident one of them would pass the Mingming-test > > because no human could make a hole through it below the waterline with > > a sledgehammer, it is that thick and flexible. An axe or pick, yes, > > not a sledge. > > I think that this is a fair level of strength to aim for in a boat - but > there aren't any boats like that built today, at least not under $1M or > so. Steel gives you that level of protection and more. > > > Aluminum from a marine standpoint is a far superior material to steel. > > Lower density and lower modulus in proportion mean double the > > thickness so the sheet buckling stiffness of an aluminum boat is 8 > > times that of a steel boat. If I had the money, I would fold up an > > aluminum orgami tomorrow. If I had a lot of money and wanted to have > > a yacht twice the size it would be Monel. But the cost. And the cost > > to weld either aluminum or Monel. Again, the steel Brent boat is an > > acme of bang for the buck. > > Yep. I'm quite familiar with the arguments for aluminum and Monel - but > there's the difficulty of welding either one, and getting repairs done > in out-of-the-way places. For hull strength, however, both certainly > pass my test. > > > In their proper use, all materials have a niche. The more I look at > > the steel / orgami method, the more I am convinced it is the only way > > to build a boat from scratch on a budget. That is a powerful niche. > > One does not have to denigrate the other pinnacles of design out there > > that use other materials and use them properly. > > My description explicitly applies to mass-produced fiberglass boats; > there's not a single one built today that I'd trust at sea. On the other > hand, I wouldn't hesitate to take, say, an 1965 Pearson out into blue > water; those were well-built boats, before insane greed kicked in. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > | 24138|23988|2010-10-06 17:30:42|brentswain38|Re: aluminum trimaran?|I have not heard of a small steel boat sinking from a collision in many years. Fibreglass boats can be bought for a fraction the cost of materials in them, at the moment. If you want to build something out of fibreglass cut out already laid up fibreglass and you only have to buy enough materials to do the corners, making it far cheaper. I only began to really relax underway, when I had my first steel hull which could collide with rocks,with no worries whatever. Then cruising became infinitely more relaxed and enjoyable. However some older fibreglass hulls, while being far better boats than newer hulls,are sometimes so cheap as to be considered disposable. Then cruising becomes very relaxed, as long as you don't spend too much on them. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > Ben; > > Isn't this just a bit overboard? I realize this is a pro steel boat forum but this sounds like the same propoganda that is used to attack Origami designs. There isn't a year that goes by that I don't hear of a steel boat being sunk as a result if striking something. > > Obviously if I didn't believe that a steel boat was better for my needs I wouldn't bother to take an interest in this site. However I don't at the same time dismiss Fiberglass or other materials. Properly implemented any of the common materials can result in a safe boat. It is just that few materials are as easy to implement for the amature builder. > > Finally Fiberglass isn't exactly cheap! At least not as a DIY venture. > > > > David A Frantz > > websterindustro@... > Sent from my iPhone. > > On Oct 5, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:22:41PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > >> > >> I think I have an idea what you are saying now... > >> > >> Yes, scaling by displacement is better, but then, as Gary said, there > >> is a limit to how thin certain materials can be -- so for smaller > >> boats one is required to go to less dense, less strong materials, but > >> make them thicker. For example, a rubber duck is nearly > >> indestructible. Rotomoulded plastic is great up to a certain size, > >> then fibreglass, then aluminum, then, finally, steel is a practical > >> alternative. > > > > Matt, I agree with your general take on this - but I don't know that the > > above is a reasonable progression; I suspect that you could easily skip > > fiberglass and maybe even aluminum in those steps (maybe branching Al > > off as a parallel option, somewhat equivalent to steel, would work > > better.) E.g., you could make a rotomolded boat up to, say, 20'; in > > fact, here's a manufacturer who makes them up to 23': > > > > http://www.samboats.com/ > > > > After that, as I recall, the smallest Brentboat isn't much bigger than > > that - and other steel boats have been made in that size or smaller. > > > > The only reason that fiberglass boats are built at all is the > > manufacturer's ease of construction and low cost (you don't have to hire > > any welders or carpenters to build one; cheap, ignorant laborers can > > spray up a hull), as well as their desire to create a market (and never > > mind that people are going to die because they've traded away safety for > > price, something that's invisible to the layman.) > > > > In my opinion, fiberglass is a catastrophically unsafe material for > > boat-building - when lined up with rotomolding and steel, it is the only > > one of the three that will shatter or at least break through if it hits > > something at speed (which boats do all too often.) This is like buying a > > car that explodes when you hit something - but, hey, it's cheap, it's > > transportation, and you really, really promise to be careful! > > > > *BOATS SHOULD FLOAT, NOT SINK* - and we have materials and techniques > > that allow us to build such boats, and have had them for well over a > > hundred years (here, I'm speaking of reasonable-sized pleasure boats; > > those scaling factors under discussion make the average freighter, or > > something the size of the Titanic, impossible to build with that sort of > > strength.) > > > > Not to offend those with fiberglass boats, but - anything that can't put > > up with running into a half-sunk floating container or underwater rocks > > at 5kt without being destroyed is not a sea-worthy boat in my opinion. > > Feel free to think of me as being paranoid if it makes you more > > comfortable. :) > > > > > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > | 24139|23988|2010-10-06 18:14:26|martin demers|Re: For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic|my boat is very similar except it is steel and 37ft long. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: m_j_malone@... Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 15:56:58 -0400 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic The boat I bought is a Rhodes Bounty II 41: http://astro.temple.edu/~bstavis/pr/bountyII.htm When Grumman bought out the manufacturer, Coleman/Aeromarine, and also bought Pearson, the moulds were transferred to Pearson and the next year Pearson started building the Pearson Rhodes 41 Matt > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:48:01 -0400 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic > > > Matt, > what model of boat is yours? > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24140|24140|2010-10-06 19:03:12|sitefix|any updates thots|2 oct 2002 alex file material List for 40 footer Steel list for building a 40 f any update on the steel needed for the twin keel 40'??? "keel uses 2.5" shaft steel--not pipe-- this I do know! I will add info about twin keel plate needs as soon as I get the info." "Hull: 2-8'x40'x3/16" plate - hull 1-4x12x3/16" Plate - hull 3-5x8x3/16 plate -transom" any reason other than convenience to get the multiple pieces instead of another sheet 8X30'or so?? i hope to check local prices this week. thank for good insight and experienced answers. pere| 24141|23988|2010-10-06 22:10:29|Ben Okopnik|Re: aluminum trimaran?|On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 09:24:14PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > Tie a piece of steel wire in knot. Now try the same with a piece of > fibreglass. Steel can stretch to 1.4 time it's original length before > breaking. With other materials, that number is practically zero. It's > this elasticity which enables steel to survive on a rocky lee shore, > with only dents, where other materials would have had holes. This is > even more true of origami boats, where the hull will spring back to > it's original shape over and over again, where a framed hull would > have it's plate wrapped around the frames, resulting in far greater > denting. > Aluminium would have many broken welds. > If I were rich,I'd go steel up to the deck cabin joint, and aluminium > for the cabin and wheelhouse. I hear the coastguard has been doing a > lot of boats that way lately. > Gives you the benefits of both. Exactly my take on it. Incidentally, the Coast Guard has been doing that for many years now; reading up on it is where I first heard of "transition joints" that I keep mentioning here once in a while (explosion-welded steel/aluminum strips that can be used to connect the hull and deck.) I actually called the main US distributor for that stuff and checked out the price. Holy crap, you _do_ have to be rich to afford it: $400/foot for 4" x .25", if I recall correctly. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24142|23988|2010-10-06 23:35:24|Ben Okopnik|Re: For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic|On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:04:58PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > Then, I got very lucky. > > It so happens in May, I bought boat #4, made in 1957, (by the same builder > who made boats and later planes for the US military) before the moulds were > sold to Pearson, and Pearson started banging them out slightly more cheaply > through the early 1960s. Pearson shaved off about 1.5-2 tons of fibreglass. They > also reduced the freshwater tank from the original 740 liters. It is true they improved > the interior layout -- but that can be redone with some plywood and a saw. It is > sailable now, the motor is rebuilt and running. [...] > And it was half the price of the STEEL for a Brent boat. Sweet - congratulations! > I would not hesitate to careen this boat on sand, or a mud-flat. That and a quart-jug of > epoxy, and a rasp will fix rock-rash. Yep; that's the beauty of a strong hull. George Buehler has a steel sailboat that he designed to be run up on a beach, do some trading, then kedge her off and head out again; gotta love a boat that can do that. > Sorry that I have been lurking on this forum now for more than 5 months, > after knowing I had found my boat, and it was not steel. I have been picking up > excellent tips for every other boat system that I will have to look at. What's to be sorry about? I'd love to build a Brentboat, but at this point, it doesn't look very likely (if things change, though, I'll be ecstatic.) Meanwhile, I'm living and cruising on my steel boat and hanging around here, picking up and sharing tips and enjoying myself. Great place with a number of smart people - what's not to like? Besides, even on a fiberglass boat, there's plenty of places where welding could come in useful - and a bunch of Brent's ideas apply to almost any kind of boat (watermaker, etc.) You're a smart guy, and you've contributed some good thought and info to this forum; I can't see any reason you'd be less than welcome here. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24143|23988|2010-10-07 06:29:48|James Pronk|Re: aluminum trimaran?|I just watched The History Channels, Modern Marvels DVD on welding and they have a good section on explosive welding. It looks like something I would love to try some day, but I don't think I will give it a try in my backyard. James > If I were rich,I'd go steel up to the deck cabin joint, and aluminium > for the cabin and wheelhouse. I hear the coastguard has been doing a > lot of boats that way lately. > Gives you the benefits of both. Exactly my take on it. Incidentally, the Coast Guard has been doing that for many years now; reading up on it is where I first heard of "transition joints" that I keep mentioning here once in a while (explosion-welded steel/aluminum strips that can be used to connect the hull and deck.) I actually called the main US distributor for that stuff and checked out the price. Holy crap, you _do_ have to be rich to afford it: $400/foot for 4" x .25", if I recall correctly. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24144|23988|2010-10-07 06:52:52|martin demers|Re: aluminum trimaran?|there is a company making "transition joints" in The Netherlands, it is called "Merrem & La Porte" the product is called Triclad, on their website it is proposed for marine use.I didn't found any in the US. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: jpronk1@... Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 03:29:46 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: aluminum trimaran? I just watched The History Channels, Modern Marvels DVD on welding and they have a good section on explosive welding. It looks like something I would love to try some day, but I don't think I will give it a try in my backyard. James > If I were rich,I'd go steel up to the deck cabin joint, and aluminium > for the cabin and wheelhouse. I hear the coastguard has been doing a > lot of boats that way lately. > Gives you the benefits of both. Exactly my take on it. Incidentally, the Coast Guard has been doing that for many years now; reading up on it is where I first heard of "transition joints" that I keep mentioning here once in a while (explosion-welded steel/aluminum strips that can be used to connect the hull and deck.) I actually called the main US distributor for that stuff and checked out the price. Holy crap, you _do_ have to be rich to afford it: $400/foot for 4" x .25", if I recall correctly. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24145|23988|2010-10-07 10:39:01|Norm Moore|Re: aluminum trimaran?|Try http://www.dynamicmaterials.com/ look for detacouple their transition material Norm Moore 559-645-5314 ________________________________ From: martin demers To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, October 7, 2010 3:52:51 AM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: aluminum trimaran? there is a company making "transition joints" in The Netherlands, it is called "Merrem & La Porte" the product is called Triclad, on their website it is proposed for marine use.I didn't found any in the US. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: jpronk1@... Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 03:29:46 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: aluminum trimaran? I just watched The History Channels, Modern Marvels DVD on welding and they have a good section on explosive welding. It looks like something I would love to try some day, but I don't think I will give it a try in my backyard. James > If I were rich,I'd go steel up to the deck cabin joint, and aluminium > for the cabin and wheelhouse. I hear the coastguard has been doing a > lot of boats that way lately. > Gives you the benefits of both. Exactly my take on it. Incidentally, the Coast Guard has been doing that for many years now; reading up on it is where I first heard of "transition joints" that I keep mentioning here once in a while (explosion-welded steel/aluminum strips that can be used to connect the hull and deck.) I actually called the main US distributor for that stuff and checked out the price. Holy crap, you _do_ have to be rich to afford it: $400/foot for 4" x .25", if I recall correctly. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24146|23988|2010-10-07 12:18:51|Ben Okopnik|Re: aluminum trimaran?|On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 06:52:51AM -0400, martin demers wrote: > > there is a company making "transition joints" in The Netherlands, it > is called "Merrem & La Porte" the product is called Triclad, on their > website it is proposed for marine use.I didn't found any in the US. According to a quick search, DuPont's "Detaclad" division developed the process in the 1950s and patented it in 1962, then licensed it to a number of companies around the world. The aluminum-steel joint is their "Detacouple" product, developed together with the US Navy. They've also developed many other types of transitions; a listing (page 4 of http://www.dynamicmaterials.com/data/brochures/1.%20SNAME%20paper%202-04.pdf ) is enough to make any structural engineer lick his lips. :) Dynamic Materials Corp is the US rep for these; they're at http://www.dynamicmaterials.com/ . A quick intro to the stuff is here: http://www.dynamicmaterials.com/data/brochures/About%20Detacoule%202%20pages.pdf . Oh, and - my favorite EXW video is at http://crazymotion.net/explosion-welding/wldl6fIDGQ5EjAy.html Be sure to check out their stir-friction welding video, too. Just wild. Looks like a fun back-yard project. First, dig a long cave... :) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24147|23988|2010-10-07 13:45:49|Mark Hamill|Re: aluminum trimaran?|Ben: I don't want to burst your bubble BUT--I have personally and only using kitchen utensils!!!!! been able to weld ORGANIC matter permanently to pans of many different metal types--I have even been approached by groups such as the fire department and insurance adjusters in response to the success of these efforts. Not bad eh?? Just give me a way to get a Brent boat on my stove and let the magic begin. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Okopnik To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 9:18 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: aluminum trimaran? On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 06:52:51AM -0400, martin demers wrote: > > there is a company making "transition joints" in The Netherlands, it > is called "Merrem & La Porte" the product is called Triclad, on their > website it is proposed for marine use.I didn't found any in the US. According to a quick search, DuPont's "Detaclad" division developed the process in the 1950s and patented it in 1962, then licensed it to a number of companies around the world. The aluminum-steel joint is their "Detacouple" product, developed together with the US Navy. They've also developed many other types of transitions; a listing (page 4 of http://www.dynamicmaterials.com/data/brochures/1.%20SNAME%20paper%202-04.pdf ) is enough to make any structural engineer lick his lips. :) Dynamic Materials Corp is the US rep for these; they're at http://www.dynamicmaterials.com/ . A quick intro to the stuff is here: http://www.dynamicmaterials.com/data/brochures/About%20Detacoule%202%20pages.pdf . Oh, and - my favorite EXW video is at http://crazymotion.net/explosion-welding/wldl6fIDGQ5EjAy.html Be sure to check out their stir-friction welding video, too. Just wild. Looks like a fun back-yard project. First, dig a long cave... :) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24148|23988|2010-10-07 14:19:04|brentswain38|Re: aluminum trimaran?|I'd worry about electrolysis between the aluminium and steel. by bolting the aluminium on a stainless flange, I could easily insulate the two from each other, electrically, and check it with a multimeter during the process.. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > there is a company making "transition joints" in The Netherlands, it is called "Merrem & La Porte" the product is called Triclad, on their website it is proposed for marine use.I didn't found any in the US. > > Martin. > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: jpronk1@... > Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 03:29:46 -0700 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: aluminum trimaran? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just watched The History Channels, Modern Marvels DVD on welding and they have a good section on explosive welding. It looks like something I would love to try some day, but I don't think I will give it a try in my backyard. > > James > > > > > If I were rich,I'd go steel up to the deck cabin joint, and aluminium > > > for the cabin and wheelhouse. I hear the coastguard has been doing a > > > lot of boats that way lately. > > > Gives you the benefits of both. > > > > Exactly my take on it. Incidentally, the Coast Guard has been doing that > > for many years now; reading up on it is where I first heard of > > "transition joints" that I keep mentioning here once in a while > > (explosion-welded steel/aluminum strips that can be used to connect the > > hull and deck.) > > > > I actually called the main US distributor for that stuff and checked out > > the price. Holy crap, you _do_ have to be rich to afford it: $400/foot > > for 4" x .25", if I recall correctly. > > > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24149|24140|2010-10-07 14:36:04|brentswain38|Re: any updates thots|No changes. The twin keels are each half the size of the single keeler , so the same plate works. Joining smaller plates is tricky . To get them fair, you have to make the first weld the big one. Shrinkage on it simply puls the two plates together, once that is done any further welding can't pull them together , so that's were the distortion starts. Bevel both edes from the top to 45 degrees, to get full penetration. Tack several pieces of plate on edge ( factory edges ) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "sitefix" wrote: > > 2 oct 2002 alex file > material List for 40 footer > Steel list for building a 40 f > > > any update on the steel needed for the twin keel 40'??? > > "keel uses 2.5" shaft steel--not pipe-- this I do know! I will add info about twin keel plate needs as soon as I get the info." > > "Hull: > 2-8'x40'x3/16" plate - hull > 1-4x12x3/16" Plate - hull > 3-5x8x3/16 plate -transom" > > any reason other than convenience to get the multiple pieces instead of another sheet 8X30'or so?? i hope to check local prices this week. > > > thank for good insight and experienced answers. > > pere > | 24150|23988|2010-10-07 14:40:31|h|sunk boats|Well there was that stretched to 39' BS 36 that almost sank when they tore the leading edge of one of the keels out of the boat, but they managed to beach it, jack the keel back down and weld it back together and sail off two days later. Try doing that with a glass boat, or even an aluminium one. In Port townsend right now had a look at that single keeler for sale here, looks like the owner dropped the price to 29k,great price, no pilot house, looks like it has a shorter mast like 45' off deck no roller furler. I don't understand why people forgo the pilot house when they put in a dodger anyway, windage is about the same, but it's just not inside, integral and warm. steal of a deal though. 1985 that must have been around the time you built your boat brent? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I have not heard of a small steel boat sinking from a collision in many years. > Fibreglass boats can be bought for a fraction the cost of materials in them, at the moment. If you want to build something out of fibreglass cut out already laid up fibreglass and you only have to buy enough materials to do the corners, making it far cheaper. > > I only began to really relax underway, when I had my first steel hull which could collide with rocks,with no worries whatever. Then cruising became infinitely more relaxed and enjoyable. > However some older fibreglass hulls, while being far better boats than newer hulls,are sometimes so cheap as to be considered disposable. Then cruising becomes very relaxed, as long as you don't spend too much on them. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > > > Ben; > > > > Isn't this just a bit overboard? I realize this is a pro steel boat forum but this sounds like the same propoganda that is used to attack Origami designs. There isn't a year that goes by that I don't hear of a steel boat being sunk as a result if striking something. > > > > Obviously if I didn't believe that a steel boat was better for my needs I wouldn't bother to take an interest in this site. However I don't at the same time dismiss Fiberglass or other materials. Properly implemented any of the common materials can result in a safe boat. It is just that few materials are as easy to implement for the amature builder. > > > > Finally Fiberglass isn't exactly cheap! At least not as a DIY venture. > > > > > > > > David A Frantz > > > > websterindustro@ > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > > On Oct 5, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:22:41PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > >> > > >> I think I have an idea what you are saying now... > > >> > > >> Yes, scaling by displacement is better, but then, as Gary said, there > > >> is a limit to how thin certain materials can be -- so for smaller > > >> boats one is required to go to less dense, less strong materials, but > > >> make them thicker. For example, a rubber duck is nearly > > >> indestructible. Rotomoulded plastic is great up to a certain size, > > >> then fibreglass, then aluminum, then, finally, steel is a practical > > >> alternative. > > > > > > Matt, I agree with your general take on this - but I don't know that the > > > above is a reasonable progression; I suspect that you could easily skip > > > fiberglass and maybe even aluminum in those steps (maybe branching Al > > > off as a parallel option, somewhat equivalent to steel, would work > > > better.) E.g., you could make a rotomolded boat up to, say, 20'; in > > > fact, here's a manufacturer who makes them up to 23': > > > > > > http://www.samboats.com/ > > > > > > After that, as I recall, the smallest Brentboat isn't much bigger than > > > that - and other steel boats have been made in that size or smaller. > > > > > > The only reason that fiberglass boats are built at all is the > > > manufacturer's ease of construction and low cost (you don't have to hire > > > any welders or carpenters to build one; cheap, ignorant laborers can > > > spray up a hull), as well as their desire to create a market (and never > > > mind that people are going to die because they've traded away safety for > > > price, something that's invisible to the layman.) > > > > > > In my opinion, fiberglass is a catastrophically unsafe material for > > > boat-building - when lined up with rotomolding and steel, it is the only > > > one of the three that will shatter or at least break through if it hits > > > something at speed (which boats do all too often.) This is like buying a > > > car that explodes when you hit something - but, hey, it's cheap, it's > > > transportation, and you really, really promise to be careful! > > > > > > *BOATS SHOULD FLOAT, NOT SINK* - and we have materials and techniques > > > that allow us to build such boats, and have had them for well over a > > > hundred years (here, I'm speaking of reasonable-sized pleasure boats; > > > those scaling factors under discussion make the average freighter, or > > > something the size of the Titanic, impossible to build with that sort of > > > strength.) > > > > > > Not to offend those with fiberglass boats, but - anything that can't put > > > up with running into a half-sunk floating container or underwater rocks > > > at 5kt without being destroyed is not a sea-worthy boat in my opinion. > > > Feel free to think of me as being paranoid if it makes you more > > > comfortable. :) > > > > > > > > > -- > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > | 24151|23988|2010-10-07 15:36:03|David Frantz|Re: aluminum trimaran?|This would be funny except for the other day I burnt a piece of meat so badly that it peeled the non stick coating right off the pan. My cooking reversed what should have been a permant bond. David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Oct 7, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Mark Hamill wrote: > Ben: I don't want to burst your bubble BUT--I have personally and only using kitchen utensils!!!!! been able to weld ORGANIC matter permanently to pans of many different metal types--I have even been approached by groups such as the fire department and insurance adjusters in response to the success of these efforts. Not bad eh?? Just give me a way to get a Brent boat on my stove and let the magic begin. MarkH > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ben Okopnik > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 9:18 AM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: aluminum trimaran? > > > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 06:52:51AM -0400, martin demers wrote: >> >> there is a company making "transition joints" in The Netherlands, it >> is called "Merrem & La Porte" the product is called Triclad, on their >> website it is proposed for marine use.I didn't found any in the US. > > According to a quick search, DuPont's "Detaclad" division developed the > process in the 1950s and patented it in 1962, then licensed it to a > number of companies around the world. The aluminum-steel joint is their > "Detacouple" product, developed together with the US Navy. They've also > developed many other types of transitions; a listing (page 4 of > http://www.dynamicmaterials.com/data/brochures/1.%20SNAME%20paper%202-04.pdf > ) is enough to make any structural engineer lick his lips. :) > > Dynamic Materials Corp is the US rep for these; they're at > http://www.dynamicmaterials.com/ . A quick intro to the stuff is here: > http://www.dynamicmaterials.com/data/brochures/About%20Detacoule%202%20pages.pdf > . > > Oh, and - my favorite EXW video is at > > http://crazymotion.net/explosion-welding/wldl6fIDGQ5EjAy.html > > Be sure to check out their stir-friction welding video, too. Just wild. > > Looks like a fun back-yard project. First, dig a long cave... :) > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24152|23988|2010-10-07 15:42:24|brentswain38|Re: sunk boats|I built that hull with a wheelhouse. A yachtie trendy dude named Tony talked him into making it look "Yachtie"( which means naive), and cut the wheelhouse off. Most boats with a wheelhouse sell for 10K more than sister ships without one. When that 40 footer hit the rock with the keel, she was doing 14 knots thru Boat Passage, south of Georgeson pass. She wasn't built to the plans, used flatbar instead of angle for the keel supports and didn't have the tank( which is structural) between the keels. It was the trailing edge which was forced thru the hull plate. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > Well there was that stretched to 39' BS 36 that almost sank when they tore the leading edge of one of the keels out of the boat, but they managed to beach it, jack the keel back down and weld it back together and sail off two days later. Try doing that with a glass boat, or even an aluminium one. > In Port townsend right now had a look at that single keeler for sale here, looks like the owner dropped the price to 29k,great price, no pilot house, looks like it has a shorter mast like 45' off deck no roller furler. I don't understand why people forgo the pilot house when they put in a dodger anyway, windage is about the same, but it's just not inside, integral and warm. steal of a deal though. 1985 that must have been around the time you built your boat brent? > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I have not heard of a small steel boat sinking from a collision in many years. > > Fibreglass boats can be bought for a fraction the cost of materials in them, at the moment. If you want to build something out of fibreglass cut out already laid up fibreglass and you only have to buy enough materials to do the corners, making it far cheaper. > > > > I only began to really relax underway, when I had my first steel hull which could collide with rocks,with no worries whatever. Then cruising became infinitely more relaxed and enjoyable. > > However some older fibreglass hulls, while being far better boats than newer hulls,are sometimes so cheap as to be considered disposable. Then cruising becomes very relaxed, as long as you don't spend too much on them. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > > > > > Ben; > > > > > > Isn't this just a bit overboard? I realize this is a pro steel boat forum but this sounds like the same propoganda that is used to attack Origami designs. There isn't a year that goes by that I don't hear of a steel boat being sunk as a result if striking something. > > > > > > Obviously if I didn't believe that a steel boat was better for my needs I wouldn't bother to take an interest in this site. However I don't at the same time dismiss Fiberglass or other materials. Properly implemented any of the common materials can result in a safe boat. It is just that few materials are as easy to implement for the amature builder. > > > > > > Finally Fiberglass isn't exactly cheap! At least not as a DIY venture. > > > > > > > > > > > > David A Frantz > > > > > > websterindustro@ > > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > > > > On Oct 5, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:22:41PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > >> > > > >> I think I have an idea what you are saying now... > > > >> > > > >> Yes, scaling by displacement is better, but then, as Gary said, there > > > >> is a limit to how thin certain materials can be -- so for smaller > > > >> boats one is required to go to less dense, less strong materials, but > > > >> make them thicker. For example, a rubber duck is nearly > > > >> indestructible. Rotomoulded plastic is great up to a certain size, > > > >> then fibreglass, then aluminum, then, finally, steel is a practical > > > >> alternative. > > > > > > > > Matt, I agree with your general take on this - but I don't know that the > > > > above is a reasonable progression; I suspect that you could easily skip > > > > fiberglass and maybe even aluminum in those steps (maybe branching Al > > > > off as a parallel option, somewhat equivalent to steel, would work > > > > better.) E.g., you could make a rotomolded boat up to, say, 20'; in > > > > fact, here's a manufacturer who makes them up to 23': > > > > > > > > http://www.samboats.com/ > > > > > > > > After that, as I recall, the smallest Brentboat isn't much bigger than > > > > that - and other steel boats have been made in that size or smaller. > > > > > > > > The only reason that fiberglass boats are built at all is the > > > > manufacturer's ease of construction and low cost (you don't have to hire > > > > any welders or carpenters to build one; cheap, ignorant laborers can > > > > spray up a hull), as well as their desire to create a market (and never > > > > mind that people are going to die because they've traded away safety for > > > > price, something that's invisible to the layman.) > > > > > > > > In my opinion, fiberglass is a catastrophically unsafe material for > > > > boat-building - when lined up with rotomolding and steel, it is the only > > > > one of the three that will shatter or at least break through if it hits > > > > something at speed (which boats do all too often.) This is like buying a > > > > car that explodes when you hit something - but, hey, it's cheap, it's > > > > transportation, and you really, really promise to be careful! > > > > > > > > *BOATS SHOULD FLOAT, NOT SINK* - and we have materials and techniques > > > > that allow us to build such boats, and have had them for well over a > > > > hundred years (here, I'm speaking of reasonable-sized pleasure boats; > > > > those scaling factors under discussion make the average freighter, or > > > > something the size of the Titanic, impossible to build with that sort of > > > > strength.) > > > > > > > > Not to offend those with fiberglass boats, but - anything that can't put > > > > up with running into a half-sunk floating container or underwater rocks > > > > at 5kt without being destroyed is not a sea-worthy boat in my opinion. > > > > Feel free to think of me as being paranoid if it makes you more > > > > comfortable. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | 24153|24140|2010-10-07 16:13:54|brentswain38|Re: any updates thots|tack several pieces of plate on edge( factory edges ) across the seam , every six inches, to keep it fair, and control weld shrinkage. Weld no more than 4 inches at a time with 1/8th inch 7024,letting each cool completely before putting another weld next to it , keeping an eye on shrinkage the whole time. When all this welding has cooled completely, you can break the support plates off. After the hull has been pulled together, you can do the outside welds. Grind into the seam from the outside with a 1/8th inch cutting wheel , only enough to eliminate the crack and see only solid metal. The outside weld should be as small as you can make it, as it will be ground flush. Use an uphand , 1/8th 6011, welding only an inch or two at a time , letting each weld cool completely before putting another next to it, keeping an eye on distortion the whole time. Too big a weld here will shrink it inward . Keep it tiny. This can result in an invisible weld, needing no filler of any kind. Better yet, hound the steel suppliers for full sized sheets, and eliminate the problem from the outset. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > No changes. The twin keels are each half the size of the single keeler , so the same plate works. > Joining smaller plates is tricky . To get them fair, you have to make the first weld the big one. Shrinkage on it simply puls the two plates together, once that is done any further welding can't pull them together , so that's were the distortion starts. > Bevel both edes from the top to 45 degrees, to get full penetration. > Tack several pieces of plate on edge ( factory edges ) > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "sitefix" wrote: > > > > 2 oct 2002 alex file > > material List for 40 footer > > Steel list for building a 40 f > > > > > > any update on the steel needed for the twin keel 40'??? > > > > "keel uses 2.5" shaft steel--not pipe-- this I do know! I will add info about twin keel plate needs as soon as I get the info." > > > > "Hull: > > 2-8'x40'x3/16" plate - hull > > 1-4x12x3/16" Plate - hull > > 3-5x8x3/16 plate -transom" > > > > any reason other than convenience to get the multiple pieces instead of another sheet 8X30'or so?? i hope to check local prices this week. > > > > > > thank for good insight and experienced answers. > > > > pere > > > | 24154|23988|2010-10-07 17:03:32|John Riehl|Re: aluminum trimaran?|Dennis Displacement is a function of volume, not linear dimension. Imagine a floating cube 100 m long, 100 m wide, and 100 m deep with a draft of 50 m. It will displace 500,000 cubic meters of sea water. Now scale that cube by a factor of 10%. The new dimensions are 10 m long, 10 m wide, and 5 m of draft. This cube displaces 500 cubic meters. Hope that helps Sent from my iPhone On Oct 5, 2010, at 3:34 PM, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > THANKS GARY FOR YOUR REPLY I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD SCALE 10.58 AND THEN 1000 --IS THE DISPLACEMENT NOT DEFINED BY THE RESULTING SCALED DOWN CRAFT REGARDLESS OF YOUR 1000 . > THE ORIGINAL HAS MASSIVE TONNAGE OF FUEL FOR 40 KNOTS SPEED FOR 4000 MILES CHOPPERS AND 20 FULL SIZE CONTAINERS TRANSPORTED ON AN INTERNAL LIFT SYSTEM BETWEEN FLOORS ---IT IS ALWAYS GOING TO SCALE HEAVY EVEN THOUGH IT IS ALUMINIUM BUT 263 TONS IS STILL WAY OUT FOR A 40 FT VESSEL . REGARDS DENIS BUGGY > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gary H. Lucas > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 3:50 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? > > Denis, > The dimensions scale that way, but displacement is closer to the scaling of the volume of the hull. So you'd divide the displace by about 1000. This results in a displacement that is a little light, which I think makes sense because you are limited by how thin the hull materials can be, probably not 1/10th of the full size ship. Make sense? > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Denis Buggy > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 6:11 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? > > DEAR JOHN AND ALL WITH A CLUE -- > > if I scale the USS independence to fit Johns request I get figures which make no sense to me maybe somebody can explain -------------- > USS INDEPENDENCE PRESENTLY ---- 127 METERS LONG BY 32 METERS BEAM--- DISPLACEMENT 2784 TONS---- 14 FT DRAFT === > TO MAKE IT JOHNS 12 METER /40FT BOAT IT REQUIRES A SCALE OF 10.58 TO CONVERT --THEREFORE > > 127 X 32 X 2784 TONS DIVIDED BY 10.58 WOULD SCALE === 12M LONG --BEAM 3.02 WEIGHT 263 TONS DISPLACEMENT ??? > HARDLY CORRECT --CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN regards Denis > ----- Original Message ----- > From: jhess314 > > - > > I've been searching through this forum looking for information about whether it is practical to build the hull of a cruising 35'-40' trimaran out of aluminum using the origami technique? So far I've only found a few references to aluminum trimarans, and none actually designed or built. I suppose that not finding anything definitive is an answer in itself, but I thought I'd ask anyway. I'm more interested in a tri that could carry the load the a cruiser would require, rather than being light and fast. > Thanks, > John > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > Gary H. Lucas > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24155|23988|2010-10-07 19:00:17|Denis Buggy|Re: aluminum trimaran?|JOHN Thank you for your reply and you do explain yourself clearly --and I must also thank all who took the trouble to reply to me including Gary and matt . I do understand what you are saying re volume however I am unsure when I look at the weight issue . the displacement arises because the weight of the ship displaces water to the weight of 2784 tons which equals 2784 cubic meters of seawater as 1 cubic meter = 1 metric tonne of water at 4 degrees there fore 10% of 2784 is 278.4 tons if you scale the ship back . I would not pursue this except I am making a scale model to check something and I suspect I may be ignorant of something very basic and get the whole thing wrong . regards Denis buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: John Riehl To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Cc: Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 8:43 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? Dennis Displacement is a function of volume, not linear dimension. Imagine a floating cube 100 m long, 100 m wide, and 100 m deep with a draft of 50 m. It will displace 500,000 cubic meters of sea water. Now scale that cube by a factor of 10%. The new dimensions are 10 m long, 10 m wide, and 5 m of draft. This cube displaces 500 cubic meters. Hope that helps Sent from my iPhone On Oct 5, 2010, at 3:34 PM, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > THANKS GARY FOR YOUR REPLY I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD SCALE 10.58 AND THEN 1000 --IS THE DISPLACEMENT NOT DEFINED BY THE RESULTING SCALED DOWN CRAFT REGARDLESS OF YOUR 1000 . > THE ORIGINAL HAS MASSIVE TONNAGE OF FUEL FOR 40 KNOTS SPEED FOR 4000 MILES CHOPPERS AND 20 FULL SIZE CONTAINERS TRANSPORTED ON AN INTERNAL LIFT SYSTEM BETWEEN FLOORS ---IT IS ALWAYS GOING TO SCALE HEAVY EVEN THOUGH IT IS ALUMINIUM BUT 263 TONS IS STILL WAY OUT FOR A 40 FT VESSEL . REGARDS DENIS BUGGY > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gary H. Lucas > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 3:50 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? > > Denis, > The dimensions scale that way, but displacement is closer to the scaling of the volume of the hull. So you'd divide the displace by about 1000. This results in a displacement that is a little light, which I think makes sense because you are limited by how thin the hull materials can be, probably not 1/10th of the full size ship. Make sense? > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Denis Buggy > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 6:11 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? > > DEAR JOHN AND ALL WITH A CLUE -- > > if I scale the USS independence to fit Johns request I get figures which make no sense to me maybe somebody can explain -------------- > USS INDEPENDENCE PRESENTLY ---- 127 METERS LONG BY 32 METERS BEAM--- DISPLACEMENT 2784 TONS---- 14 FT DRAFT === > TO MAKE IT JOHNS 12 METER /40FT BOAT IT REQUIRES A SCALE OF 10.58 TO CONVERT --THEREFORE > > 127 X 32 X 2784 TONS DIVIDED BY 10.58 WOULD SCALE === 12M LONG --BEAM 3.02 WEIGHT 263 TONS DISPLACEMENT ??? > HARDLY CORRECT --CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN regards Denis > ----- Original Message ----- > From: jhess314 > > - > > I've been searching through this forum looking for information about whether it is practical to build the hull of a cruising 35'-40' trimaran out of aluminum using the origami technique? So far I've only found a few references to aluminum trimarans, and none actually designed or built. I suppose that not finding anything definitive is an answer in itself, but I thought I'd ask anyway. I'm more interested in a tri that could carry the load the a cruiser would require, rather than being light and fast. > Thanks, > John > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > Gary H. Lucas > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24156|24156|2010-10-07 19:10:00|Mark Hamill|sunk boats--wheel house and hull joints|Brent: Is there a photo of a boat with the wheelhouse?? Regarding hull joints--When I worked at one custom yacht company the fiberglass hulls had a flange facing inward on which strips of grey butyl (the window stuff in paper covered roll) was placed on the flange and then a ribbed vinly piece which I think had something to do with swimming pool joints and then more butyl on top of that. An L shaped proprietary aluminum piece with flathead bolt holes alread machined in it about 4" centres was then bolted (1/4" can't remember if lock nuts but washers definitely). The butyl squeezed out the sides which you want to avoid by placing it a bit back of the edge since it was a pain to clean. It took 2 of us about a day. Maybe this would work with an aluminum deck with some excellent goop under the bolt heads to stop electrolosis?? The joint was finished with something?? MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24157|23988|2010-10-07 20:22:24|h|Re: sunk boats|yeah that would destroy most any boat, Matthias showed me some pictures of the damage after, the water line was way up high, it would be interesting to know how much floatation the foam gives these boats. The foamers filled the whole area between my keel supports, totally covered them before I could stop them, theres like 4 or 5 inches of foam there which I'm sure will help give me more time if I ever start taking on water. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I built that hull with a wheelhouse. A yachtie trendy dude named Tony talked him into making it look "Yachtie"( which means naive), and cut the wheelhouse off. > Most boats with a wheelhouse sell for 10K more than sister ships without one. > When that 40 footer hit the rock with the keel, she was doing 14 knots thru Boat Passage, south of Georgeson pass. She wasn't built to the plans, used flatbar instead of angle for the keel supports and didn't have the tank( which is structural) between the keels. > It was the trailing edge which was forced thru the hull plate. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > > > Well there was that stretched to 39' BS 36 that almost sank when they tore the leading edge of one of the keels out of the boat, but they managed to beach it, jack the keel back down and weld it back together and sail off two days later. Try doing that with a glass boat, or even an aluminium one. > > In Port townsend right now had a look at that single keeler for sale here, looks like the owner dropped the price to 29k,great price, no pilot house, looks like it has a shorter mast like 45' off deck no roller furler. I don't understand why people forgo the pilot house when they put in a dodger anyway, windage is about the same, but it's just not inside, integral and warm. steal of a deal though. 1985 that must have been around the time you built your boat brent? > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I have not heard of a small steel boat sinking from a collision in many years. > > > Fibreglass boats can be bought for a fraction the cost of materials in them, at the moment. If you want to build something out of fibreglass cut out already laid up fibreglass and you only have to buy enough materials to do the corners, making it far cheaper. > > > > > > I only began to really relax underway, when I had my first steel hull which could collide with rocks,with no worries whatever. Then cruising became infinitely more relaxed and enjoyable. > > > However some older fibreglass hulls, while being far better boats than newer hulls,are sometimes so cheap as to be considered disposable. Then cruising becomes very relaxed, as long as you don't spend too much on them. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > > > > > > > Ben; > > > > > > > > Isn't this just a bit overboard? I realize this is a pro steel boat forum but this sounds like the same propoganda that is used to attack Origami designs. There isn't a year that goes by that I don't hear of a steel boat being sunk as a result if striking something. > > > > > > > > Obviously if I didn't believe that a steel boat was better for my needs I wouldn't bother to take an interest in this site. However I don't at the same time dismiss Fiberglass or other materials. Properly implemented any of the common materials can result in a safe boat. It is just that few materials are as easy to implement for the amature builder. > > > > > > > > Finally Fiberglass isn't exactly cheap! At least not as a DIY venture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David A Frantz > > > > > > > > websterindustro@ > > > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > > > > > > On Oct 5, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:22:41PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> I think I have an idea what you are saying now... > > > > >> > > > > >> Yes, scaling by displacement is better, but then, as Gary said, there > > > > >> is a limit to how thin certain materials can be -- so for smaller > > > > >> boats one is required to go to less dense, less strong materials, but > > > > >> make them thicker. For example, a rubber duck is nearly > > > > >> indestructible. Rotomoulded plastic is great up to a certain size, > > > > >> then fibreglass, then aluminum, then, finally, steel is a practical > > > > >> alternative. > > > > > > > > > > Matt, I agree with your general take on this - but I don't know that the > > > > > above is a reasonable progression; I suspect that you could easily skip > > > > > fiberglass and maybe even aluminum in those steps (maybe branching Al > > > > > off as a parallel option, somewhat equivalent to steel, would work > > > > > better.) E.g., you could make a rotomolded boat up to, say, 20'; in > > > > > fact, here's a manufacturer who makes them up to 23': > > > > > > > > > > http://www.samboats.com/ > > > > > > > > > > After that, as I recall, the smallest Brentboat isn't much bigger than > > > > > that - and other steel boats have been made in that size or smaller. > > > > > > > > > > The only reason that fiberglass boats are built at all is the > > > > > manufacturer's ease of construction and low cost (you don't have to hire > > > > > any welders or carpenters to build one; cheap, ignorant laborers can > > > > > spray up a hull), as well as their desire to create a market (and never > > > > > mind that people are going to die because they've traded away safety for > > > > > price, something that's invisible to the layman.) > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, fiberglass is a catastrophically unsafe material for > > > > > boat-building - when lined up with rotomolding and steel, it is the only > > > > > one of the three that will shatter or at least break through if it hits > > > > > something at speed (which boats do all too often.) This is like buying a > > > > > car that explodes when you hit something - but, hey, it's cheap, it's > > > > > transportation, and you really, really promise to be careful! > > > > > > > > > > *BOATS SHOULD FLOAT, NOT SINK* - and we have materials and techniques > > > > > that allow us to build such boats, and have had them for well over a > > > > > hundred years (here, I'm speaking of reasonable-sized pleasure boats; > > > > > those scaling factors under discussion make the average freighter, or > > > > > something the size of the Titanic, impossible to build with that sort of > > > > > strength.) > > > > > > > > > > Not to offend those with fiberglass boats, but - anything that can't put > > > > > up with running into a half-sunk floating container or underwater rocks > > > > > at 5kt without being destroyed is not a sea-worthy boat in my opinion. > > > > > Feel free to think of me as being paranoid if it makes you more > > > > > comfortable. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > > > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | 24158|23988|2010-10-07 20:57:00|wild_explorer|Re: sunk boats|I think additional flotation given by foaming could be estimated by taking combined plates area from material list. (Area_of_metal x thickness_of_foam) x (water_density - foam_density) Correct me if I am missing something. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > it would be interesting to know how much floatation the foam gives these boats. The foamers filled the whole area between my keel supports, totally covered them before I could stop them, theres like 4 or 5 inches of foam there which I'm sure will help give me more time if I ever start taking on water. > | 24159|23988|2010-10-07 21:09:37|Paul Wilson|Re: sunk boats|1 inch of foam will float 1/8 inch of steel. When I cut out one of my portholes, I threw it in a bucket of water and it floated. If it wasn't for the ballast, I think the typical foamed hull with it's interior woodwork would be unsinkable. It would be an awfully wet ride though. Cheers, Paul On 10/8/2010 1:22 PM, h wrote: > > yeah that would destroy most any boat, Matthias showed me some > pictures of the damage after, the water line was way up high, it would > be interesting to know how much floatation the foam gives these boats. > The foamers filled the whole area between my keel supports, totally > covered them before I could stop them, theres like 4 or 5 inches of > foam there which I'm sure will help give me more time if I ever start > taking on water. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "brentswain38" > wrote: > > > > I built that hull with a wheelhouse. A yachtie trendy dude named > Tony talked him into making it look "Yachtie"( which means naive), and > cut the wheelhouse off. > > Most boats with a wheelhouse sell for 10K more than sister ships > without one. > > When that 40 footer hit the rock with the keel, she was doing 14 > knots thru Boat Passage, south of Georgeson pass. She wasn't built to > the plans, used flatbar instead of angle for the keel supports and > didn't have the tank( which is structural) between the keels. > > It was the trailing edge which was forced thru the hull plate. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "h" wrote: > > > > > > Well there was that stretched to 39' BS 36 that almost sank when > they tore the leading edge of one of the keels out of the boat, but > they managed to beach it, jack the keel back down and weld it back > together and sail off two days later. Try doing that with a glass > boat, or even an aluminium one. > > > In Port townsend right now had a look at that single keeler for > sale here, looks like the owner dropped the price to 29k,great price, > no pilot house, looks like it has a shorter mast like 45' off deck no > roller furler. I don't understand why people forgo the pilot house > when they put in a dodger anyway, windage is about the same, but it's > just not inside, integral and warm. steal of a deal though. 1985 that > must have been around the time you built your boat brent? > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "brentswain38" > wrote: > > > > > > > > I have not heard of a small steel boat sinking from a collision > in many years. > > > > Fibreglass boats can be bought for a fraction the cost of > materials in them, at the moment. If you want to build something out > of fibreglass cut out already laid up fibreglass and you only have to > buy enough materials to do the corners, making it far cheaper. > > > > > > > > I only began to really relax underway, when I had my first steel > hull which could collide with rocks,with no worries whatever. Then > cruising became infinitely more relaxed and enjoyable. > > > > However some older fibreglass hulls, while being far better > boats than newer hulls,are sometimes so cheap as to be considered > disposable. Then cruising becomes very relaxed, as long as you don't > spend too much on them. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , David Frantz > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ben; > > > > > > > > > > Isn't this just a bit overboard? I realize this is a pro steel > boat forum but this sounds like the same propoganda that is used to > attack Origami designs. There isn't a year that goes by that I don't > hear of a steel boat being sunk as a result if striking something. > > > > > > > > > > Obviously if I didn't believe that a steel boat was better for > my needs I wouldn't bother to take an interest in this site. However I > don't at the same time dismiss Fiberglass or other materials. Properly > implemented any of the common materials can result in a safe boat. It > is just that few materials are as easy to implement for the amature > builder. > > > > > > > > > > Finally Fiberglass isn't exactly cheap! At least not as a DIY > venture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David A Frantz > > > > > > > > > > websterindustro@ > > > > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 5, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:22:41PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I think I have an idea what you are saying now... > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Yes, scaling by displacement is better, but then, as Gary > said, there > > > > > >> is a limit to how thin certain materials can be -- so for > smaller > > > > > >> boats one is required to go to less dense, less strong > materials, but > > > > > >> make them thicker. For example, a rubber duck is nearly > > > > > >> indestructible. Rotomoulded plastic is great up to a > certain size, > > > > > >> then fibreglass, then aluminum, then, finally, steel is a > practical > > > > > >> alternative. > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, I agree with your general take on this - but I don't > know that the > > > > > > above is a reasonable progression; I suspect that you could > easily skip > > > > > > fiberglass and maybe even aluminum in those steps (maybe > branching Al > > > > > > off as a parallel option, somewhat equivalent to steel, > would work > > > > > > better.) E.g., you could make a rotomolded boat up to, say, > 20'; in > > > > > > fact, here's a manufacturer who makes them up to 23': > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.samboats.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > After that, as I recall, the smallest Brentboat isn't much > bigger than > > > > > > that - and other steel boats have been made in that size or > smaller. > > > > > > > > > > > > The only reason that fiberglass boats are built at all is the > > > > > > manufacturer's ease of construction and low cost (you don't > have to hire > > > > > > any welders or carpenters to build one; cheap, ignorant > laborers can > > > > > > spray up a hull), as well as their desire to create a market > (and never > > > > > > mind that people are going to die because they've traded > away safety for > > > > > > price, something that's invisible to the layman.) > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, fiberglass is a catastrophically unsafe > material for > > > > > > boat-building - when lined up with rotomolding and steel, it > is the only > > > > > > one of the three that will shatter or at least break through > if it hits > > > > > > something at speed (which boats do all too often.) This is > like buying a > > > > > > car that explodes when you hit something - but, hey, it's > cheap, it's > > > > > > transportation, and you really, really promise to be careful! > > > > > > > > > > > > *BOATS SHOULD FLOAT, NOT SINK* - and we have materials and > techniques > > > > > > that allow us to build such boats, and have had them for > well over a > > > > > > hundred years (here, I'm speaking of reasonable-sized > pleasure boats; > > > > > > those scaling factors under discussion make the average > freighter, or > > > > > > something the size of the Titanic, impossible to build with > that sort of > > > > > > strength.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Not to offend those with fiberglass boats, but - anything > that can't put > > > > > > up with running into a half-sunk floating container or > underwater rocks > > > > > > at 5kt without being destroyed is not a sea-worthy boat in > my opinion. > > > > > > Feel free to think of me as being paranoid if it makes you more > > > > > > comfortable. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom > programming > > > > > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3182 - Release Date: 10/07/10 19:34:00 > | 24160|23988|2010-10-07 21:44:34|martin demers|Re: sunk boats|how thick would it need to float the boat if we include the ballast, would it be logical? Martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: opusnz@... > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:11:05 +1300 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: sunk boats > > 1 inch of foam will float 1/8 inch of steel. When I cut out one of my > portholes, I threw it in a bucket of water and it floated. If it wasn't > for the ballast, I think the typical foamed hull with it's interior > woodwork would be unsinkable. It would be an awfully wet ride though. > > Cheers, Paul > > On 10/8/2010 1:22 PM, h wrote: > > > > yeah that would destroy most any boat, Matthias showed me some > > pictures of the damage after, the water line was way up high, it would > > be interesting to know how much floatation the foam gives these boats. > > The foamers filled the whole area between my keel supports, totally > > covered them before I could stop them, theres like 4 or 5 inches of > > foam there which I'm sure will help give me more time if I ever start > > taking on water. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , "brentswain38" > > wrote: > > > > > > I built that hull with a wheelhouse. A yachtie trendy dude named > > Tony talked him into making it look "Yachtie"( which means naive), and > > cut the wheelhouse off. > > > Most boats with a wheelhouse sell for 10K more than sister ships > > without one. > > > When that 40 footer hit the rock with the keel, she was doing 14 > > knots thru Boat Passage, south of Georgeson pass. She wasn't built to > > the plans, used flatbar instead of angle for the keel supports and > > didn't have the tank( which is structural) between the keels. > > > It was the trailing edge which was forced thru the hull plate. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , "h" wrote: > > > > > > > > Well there was that stretched to 39' BS 36 that almost sank when > > they tore the leading edge of one of the keels out of the boat, but > > they managed to beach it, jack the keel back down and weld it back > > together and sail off two days later. Try doing that with a glass > > boat, or even an aluminium one. > > > > In Port townsend right now had a look at that single keeler for > > sale here, looks like the owner dropped the price to 29k,great price, > > no pilot house, looks like it has a shorter mast like 45' off deck no > > roller furler. I don't understand why people forgo the pilot house > > when they put in a dodger anyway, windage is about the same, but it's > > just not inside, integral and warm. steal of a deal though. 1985 that > > must have been around the time you built your boat brent? > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , "brentswain38" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I have not heard of a small steel boat sinking from a collision > > in many years. > > > > > Fibreglass boats can be bought for a fraction the cost of > > materials in them, at the moment. If you want to build something out > > of fibreglass cut out already laid up fibreglass and you only have to > > buy enough materials to do the corners, making it far cheaper. > > > > > > > > > > I only began to really relax underway, when I had my first steel > > hull which could collide with rocks,with no worries whatever. Then > > cruising became infinitely more relaxed and enjoyable. > > > > > However some older fibreglass hulls, while being far better > > boats than newer hulls,are sometimes so cheap as to be considered > > disposable. Then cruising becomes very relaxed, as long as you don't > > spend too much on them. > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , David Frantz > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben; > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't this just a bit overboard? I realize this is a pro steel > > boat forum but this sounds like the same propoganda that is used to > > attack Origami designs. There isn't a year that goes by that I don't > > hear of a steel boat being sunk as a result if striking something. > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously if I didn't believe that a steel boat was better for > > my needs I wouldn't bother to take an interest in this site. However I > > don't at the same time dismiss Fiberglass or other materials. Properly > > implemented any of the common materials can result in a safe boat. It > > is just that few materials are as easy to implement for the amature > > builder. > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally Fiberglass isn't exactly cheap! At least not as a DIY > > venture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David A Frantz > > > > > > > > > > > > websterindustro@ > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 5, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:22:41PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I think I have an idea what you are saying now... > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Yes, scaling by displacement is better, but then, as Gary > > said, there > > > > > > >> is a limit to how thin certain materials can be -- so for > > smaller > > > > > > >> boats one is required to go to less dense, less strong > > materials, but > > > > > > >> make them thicker. For example, a rubber duck is nearly > > > > > > >> indestructible. Rotomoulded plastic is great up to a > > certain size, > > > > > > >> then fibreglass, then aluminum, then, finally, steel is a > > practical > > > > > > >> alternative. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, I agree with your general take on this - but I don't > > know that the > > > > > > > above is a reasonable progression; I suspect that you could > > easily skip > > > > > > > fiberglass and maybe even aluminum in those steps (maybe > > branching Al > > > > > > > off as a parallel option, somewhat equivalent to steel, > > would work > > > > > > > better.) E.g., you could make a rotomolded boat up to, say, > > 20'; in > > > > > > > fact, here's a manufacturer who makes them up to 23': > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.samboats.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After that, as I recall, the smallest Brentboat isn't much > > bigger than > > > > > > > that - and other steel boats have been made in that size or > > smaller. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only reason that fiberglass boats are built at all is the > > > > > > > manufacturer's ease of construction and low cost (you don't > > have to hire > > > > > > > any welders or carpenters to build one; cheap, ignorant > > laborers can > > > > > > > spray up a hull), as well as their desire to create a market > > (and never > > > > > > > mind that people are going to die because they've traded > > away safety for > > > > > > > price, something that's invisible to the layman.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, fiberglass is a catastrophically unsafe > > material for > > > > > > > boat-building - when lined up with rotomolding and steel, it > > is the only > > > > > > > one of the three that will shatter or at least break through > > if it hits > > > > > > > something at speed (which boats do all too often.) This is > > like buying a > > > > > > > car that explodes when you hit something - but, hey, it's > > cheap, it's > > > > > > > transportation, and you really, really promise to be careful! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *BOATS SHOULD FLOAT, NOT SINK* - and we have materials and > > techniques > > > > > > > that allow us to build such boats, and have had them for > > well over a > > > > > > > hundred years (here, I'm speaking of reasonable-sized > > pleasure boats; > > > > > > > those scaling factors under discussion make the average > > freighter, or > > > > > > > something the size of the Titanic, impossible to build with > > that sort of > > > > > > > strength.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not to offend those with fiberglass boats, but - anything > > that can't put > > > > > > > up with running into a half-sunk floating container or > > underwater rocks > > > > > > > at 5kt without being destroyed is not a sea-worthy boat in > > my opinion. > > > > > > > Feel free to think of me as being paranoid if it makes you more > > > > > > > comfortable. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > > > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > > > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom > > programming > > > > > > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3182 - Release Date: 10/07/10 19:34:00 > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24161|23988|2010-10-07 22:06:55|Doug Jackson|Re: sunk boats|7 tons of ballast = 14000 pounds / 65 pounds per cubic foot of water = 215 cubic feet of air or foam or a hunk of space that is 6 x 6 x 6. Pluss additional for non-buoyant cargo and materials like anchors, chain, engines, winches. That gets offset some by buoyant cargo like life jackets, but only if after that stuff is submerged. Something that would work, but which requires lots of work, inconvenience and money; would be to build your hull so that it can be sealed air tight allowing you to trap a large volume of air inside. You'll need hatches that dog down or open inward with air tight seals. This includes all entrances into your hull, including portals, your ventilation systems, exhaust, etc. It all would need to withstand about 4 psi of internal pressure. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: martin demers To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, October 7, 2010 8:44:26 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: sunk boats how thick would it need to float the boat if we include the ballast, would it be logical? Martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: opusnz@... > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:11:05 +1300 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: sunk boats > > 1 inch of foam will float 1/8 inch of steel. When I cut out one of my > portholes, I threw it in a bucket of water and it floated. If it wasn't > for the ballast, I think the typical foamed hull with it's interior > woodwork would be unsinkable. It would be an awfully wet ride though. > > Cheers, Paul > > On 10/8/2010 1:22 PM, h wrote: > > > > yeah that would destroy most any boat, Matthias showed me some > > pictures of the damage after, the water line was way up high, it would > > be interesting to know how much floatation the foam gives these boats. > > The foamers filled the whole area between my keel supports, totally > > covered them before I could stop them, theres like 4 or 5 inches of > > foam there which I'm sure will help give me more time if I ever start > > taking on water. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , "brentswain38" > > wrote: > > > > > > I built that hull with a wheelhouse. A yachtie trendy dude named > > Tony talked him into making it look "Yachtie"( which means naive), and > > cut the wheelhouse off. > > > Most boats with a wheelhouse sell for 10K more than sister ships > > without one. > > > When that 40 footer hit the rock with the keel, she was doing 14 > > knots thru Boat Passage, south of Georgeson pass. She wasn't built to > > the plans, used flatbar instead of angle for the keel supports and > > didn't have the tank( which is structural) between the keels. > > > It was the trailing edge which was forced thru the hull plate. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , "h" wrote: > > > > > > > > Well there was that stretched to 39' BS 36 that almost sank when > > they tore the leading edge of one of the keels out of the boat, but > > they managed to beach it, jack the keel back down and weld it back > > together and sail off two days later. Try doing that with a glass > > boat, or even an aluminium one. > > > > In Port townsend right now had a look at that single keeler for > > sale here, looks like the owner dropped the price to 29k,great price, > > no pilot house, looks like it has a shorter mast like 45' off deck no > > roller furler. I don't understand why people forgo the pilot house > > when they put in a dodger anyway, windage is about the same, but it's > > just not inside, integral and warm. steal of a deal though. 1985 that > > must have been around the time you built your boat brent? > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , "brentswain38" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I have not heard of a small steel boat sinking from a collision > > in many years. > > > > > Fibreglass boats can be bought for a fraction the cost of > > materials in them, at the moment. If you want to build something out > > of fibreglass cut out already laid up fibreglass and you only have to > > buy enough materials to do the corners, making it far cheaper. > > > > > > > > > > I only began to really relax underway, when I had my first steel > > hull which could collide with rocks,with no worries whatever. Then > > cruising became infinitely more relaxed and enjoyable. > > > > > However some older fibreglass hulls, while being far better > > boats than newer hulls,are sometimes so cheap as to be considered > > disposable. Then cruising becomes very relaxed, as long as you don't > > spend too much on them. > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , David Frantz > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben; > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't this just a bit overboard? I realize this is a pro steel > > boat forum but this sounds like the same propoganda that is used to > > attack Origami designs. There isn't a year that goes by that I don't > > hear of a steel boat being sunk as a result if striking something. > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously if I didn't believe that a steel boat was better for > > my needs I wouldn't bother to take an interest in this site. However I > > don't at the same time dismiss Fiberglass or other materials. Properly > > implemented any of the common materials can result in a safe boat. It > > is just that few materials are as easy to implement for the amature > > builder. > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally Fiberglass isn't exactly cheap! At least not as a DIY > > venture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David A Frantz > > > > > > > > > > > > websterindustro@ > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 5, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:22:41PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I think I have an idea what you are saying now... > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Yes, scaling by displacement is better, but then, as Gary > > said, there > > > > > > >> is a limit to how thin certain materials can be -- so for > > smaller > > > > > > >> boats one is required to go to less dense, less strong > > materials, but > > > > > > >> make them thicker. For example, a rubber duck is nearly > > > > > > >> indestructible. Rotomoulded plastic is great up to a > > certain size, > > > > > > >> then fibreglass, then aluminum, then, finally, steel is a > > practical > > > > > > >> alternative. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, I agree with your general take on this - but I don't > > know that the > > > > > > > above is a reasonable progression; I suspect that you could > > easily skip > > > > > > > fiberglass and maybe even aluminum in those steps (maybe > > branching Al > > > > > > > off as a parallel option, somewhat equivalent to steel, > > would work > > > > > > > better.) E.g., you could make a rotomolded boat up to, say, > > 20'; in > > > > > > > fact, here's a manufacturer who makes them up to 23': > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.samboats.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After that, as I recall, the smallest Brentboat isn't much > > bigger than > > > > > > > that - and other steel boats have been made in that size or > > smaller. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only reason that fiberglass boats are built at all is the > > > > > > > manufacturer's ease of construction and low cost (you don't > > have to hire > > > > > > > any welders or carpenters to build one; cheap, ignorant > > laborers can > > > > > > > spray up a hull), as well as their desire to create a market > > (and never > > > > > > > mind that people are going to die because they've traded > > away safety for > > > > > > > price, something that's invisible to the layman.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, fiberglass is a catastrophically unsafe > > material for > > > > > > > boat-building - when lined up with rotomolding and steel, it > > is the only > > > > > > > one of the three that will shatter or at least break through > > if it hits > > > > > > > something at speed (which boats do all too often.) This is > > like buying a > > > > > > > car that explodes when you hit something - but, hey, it's > > cheap, it's > > > > > > > transportation, and you really, really promise to be careful! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *BOATS SHOULD FLOAT, NOT SINK* - and we have materials and > > techniques > > > > > > > that allow us to build such boats, and have had them for > > well over a > > > > > > > hundred years (here, I'm speaking of reasonable-sized > > pleasure boats; > > > > > > > those scaling factors under discussion make the average > > freighter, or > > > > > > > something the size of the Titanic, impossible to build with > > that sort of > > > > > > > strength.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not to offend those with fiberglass boats, but - anything > > that can't put > > > > > > > up with running into a half-sunk floating container or > > underwater rocks > > > > > > > at 5kt without being destroyed is not a sea-worthy boat in > > my opinion. > > > > > > > Feel free to think of me as being paranoid if it makes you more > > > > > > > comfortable. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > > > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > > > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom > > programming > > > > > > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3182 - Release Date: 10/07/10 >19:34:00 > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: >origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24162|23988|2010-10-08 10:24:36|Lindsay|Re: sunk boats|foam only provides as much flotation as the water it displaces how thick would it need to float the boat if we include the ballast, would it be logical? Martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: opusnz@... > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:11:05 +1300 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: sunk boats > > 1 inch of foam will float 1/8 inch of steel. When I cut out one of my > portholes, I threw it in a bucket of water and it floated. If it wasn't > for the ballast, I think the typical foamed hull with it's interior > woodwork would be unsinkable. It would be an awfully wet ride though. > > Cheers, Paul > > On 10/8/2010 1:22 PM, h wrote: > > > > yeah that would destroy most any boat, Matthias showed me some > > pictures of the damage after, the water line was way up high, it would > > be interesting to know how much floatation the foam gives these boats. > > The foamers filled the whole area between my keel supports, totally > > covered them before I could stop them, theres like 4 or 5 inches of > > foam there which I'm sure will help give me more time if I ever start > > taking on water. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , "brentswain38" > > wrote: > > > > > > I built that hull with a wheelhouse. A yachtie trendy dude named > > Tony talked him into making it look "Yachtie"( which means naive), and > > cut the wheelhouse off. > > > Most boats with a wheelhouse sell for 10K more than sister ships > > without one. > > > When that 40 footer hit the rock with the keel, she was doing 14 > > knots thru Boat Passage, south of Georgeson pass. She wasn't built to > > the plans, used flatbar instead of angle for the keel supports and > > didn't have the tank( which is structural) between the keels. > > > It was the trailing edge which was forced thru the hull plate. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , "h" wrote: > > > > > > > > Well there was that stretched to 39' BS 36 that almost sank when > > they tore the leading edge of one of the keels out of the boat, but > > they managed to beach it, jack the keel back down and weld it back > > together and sail off two days later. Try doing that with a glass > > boat, or even an aluminium one. > > > > In Port townsend right now had a look at that single keeler for > > sale here, looks like the owner dropped the price to 29k,great price, > > no pilot house, looks like it has a shorter mast like 45' off deck no > > roller furler. I don't understand why people forgo the pilot house > > when they put in a dodger anyway, windage is about the same, but it's > > just not inside, integral and warm. steal of a deal though. 1985 that > > must have been around the time you built your boat brent? > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , "brentswain38" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I have not heard of a small steel boat sinking from a collision > > in many years. > > > > > Fibreglass boats can be bought for a fraction the cost of > > materials in them, at the moment. If you want to build something out > > of fibreglass cut out already laid up fibreglass and you only have to > > buy enough materials to do the corners, making it far cheaper. > > > > > > > > > > I only began to really relax underway, when I had my first steel > > hull which could collide with rocks,with no worries whatever. Then > > cruising became infinitely more relaxed and enjoyable. > > > > > However some older fibreglass hulls, while being far better > > boats than newer hulls,are sometimes so cheap as to be considered > > disposable. Then cruising becomes very relaxed, as long as you don't > > spend too much on them. > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , David Frantz > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben; > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't this just a bit overboard? I realize this is a pro steel > > boat forum but this sounds like the same propoganda that is used to > > attack Origami designs. There isn't a year that goes by that I don't > > hear of a steel boat being sunk as a result if striking something. > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously if I didn't believe that a steel boat was better for > > my needs I wouldn't bother to take an interest in this site. However I > > don't at the same time dismiss Fiberglass or other materials. Properly > > implemented any of the common materials can result in a safe boat. It > > is just that few materials are as easy to implement for the amature > > builder. > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally Fiberglass isn't exactly cheap! At least not as a DIY > > venture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David A Frantz > > > > > > > > > > > > websterindustro@ > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 5, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:22:41PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I think I have an idea what you are saying now... > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Yes, scaling by displacement is better, but then, as Gary > > said, there > > > > > > >> is a limit to how thin certain materials can be -- so for > > smaller > > > > > > >> boats one is required to go to less dense, less strong > > materials, but > > > > > > >> make them thicker. For example, a rubber duck is nearly > > > > > > >> indestructible. Rotomoulded plastic is great up to a > > certain size, > > > > > > >> then fibreglass, then aluminum, then, finally, steel is a > > practical > > > > > > >> alternative. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, I agree with your general take on this - but I don't > > know that the > > > > > > > above is a reasonable progression; I suspect that you could > > easily skip > > > > > > > fiberglass and maybe even aluminum in those steps (maybe > > branching Al > > > > > > > off as a parallel option, somewhat equivalent to steel, > > would work > > > > > > > better.) E.g., you could make a rotomolded boat up to, say, > > 20'; in > > > > > > > fact, here's a manufacturer who makes them up to 23': > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.samboats.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After that, as I recall, the smallest Brentboat isn't much > > bigger than > > > > > > > that - and other steel boats have been made in that size or > > smaller. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only reason that fiberglass boats are built at all is the > > > > > > > manufacturer's ease of construction and low cost (you don't > > have to hire > > > > > > > any welders or carpenters to build one; cheap, ignorant > > laborers can > > > > > > > spray up a hull), as well as their desire to create a market > > (and never > > > > > > > mind that people are going to die because they've traded > > away safety for > > > > > > > price, something that's invisible to the layman.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, fiberglass is a catastrophically unsafe > > material for > > > > > > > boat-building - when lined up with rotomolding and steel, it > > is the only > > > > > > > one of the three that will shatter or at least break through > > if it hits > > > > > > > something at speed (which boats do all too often.) This is > > like buying a > > > > > > > car that explodes when you hit something - but, hey, it's > > cheap, it's > > > > > > > transportation, and you really, really promise to be careful! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *BOATS SHOULD FLOAT, NOT SINK* - and we have materials and > > techniques > > > > > > > that allow us to build such boats, and have had them for > > well over a > > > > > > > hundred years (here, I'm speaking of reasonable-sized > > pleasure boats; > > > > > > > those scaling factors under discussion make the average > > freighter, or > > > > > > > something the size of the Titanic, impossible to build with > > that sort of > > > > > > > strength.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not to offend those with fiberglass boats, but - anything > > that can't put > > > > > > > up with running into a half-sunk floating container or > > underwater rocks > > > > > > > at 5kt without being destroyed is not a sea-worthy boat in > > my opinion. > > > > > > > Feel free to think of me as being paranoid if it makes you more > > > > > > > comfortable. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > > > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > > > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom > > programming > > > > > > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3182 - Release Date: 10/07/10 19:34:00 > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24163|23988|2010-10-08 10:24:40|Lindsay|Re: sunk boats|t ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Jackson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 3:06 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: sunk boats 7 tons of ballast = 14000 pounds / 65 pounds per cubic foot of water = 215 cubic feet of air or foam or a hunk of space that is 6 x 6 x 6. Pluss additional for non-buoyant cargo and materials like anchors, chain, engines, winches. That gets offset some by buoyant cargo like life jackets, but only if after that stuff is submerged. Something that would work, but which requires lots of work, inconvenience and money; would be to build your hull so that it can be sealed air tight allowing you to trap a large volume of air inside. You'll need hatches that dog down or open inward with air tight seals. This includes all entrances into your hull, including portals, your ventilation systems, exhaust, etc. It all would need to withstand about 4 psi of internal pressure. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: martin demers To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, October 7, 2010 8:44:26 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: sunk boats how thick would it need to float the boat if we include the ballast, would it be logical? Martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: opusnz@... > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:11:05 +1300 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: sunk boats > > 1 inch of foam will float 1/8 inch of steel. When I cut out one of my > portholes, I threw it in a bucket of water and it floated. If it wasn't > for the ballast, I think the typical foamed hull with it's interior > woodwork would be unsinkable. It would be an awfully wet ride though. > > Cheers, Paul > > On 10/8/2010 1:22 PM, h wrote: > > > > yeah that would destroy most any boat, Matthias showed me some > > pictures of the damage after, the water line was way up high, it would > > be interesting to know how much floatation the foam gives these boats. > > The foamers filled the whole area between my keel supports, totally > > covered them before I could stop them, theres like 4 or 5 inches of > > foam there which I'm sure will help give me more time if I ever start > > taking on water. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , "brentswain38" > > wrote: > > > > > > I built that hull with a wheelhouse. A yachtie trendy dude named > > Tony talked him into making it look "Yachtie"( which means naive), and > > cut the wheelhouse off. > > > Most boats with a wheelhouse sell for 10K more than sister ships > > without one. > > > When that 40 footer hit the rock with the keel, she was doing 14 > > knots thru Boat Passage, south of Georgeson pass. She wasn't built to > > the plans, used flatbar instead of angle for the keel supports and > > didn't have the tank( which is structural) between the keels. > > > It was the trailing edge which was forced thru the hull plate. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , "h" wrote: > > > > > > > > Well there was that stretched to 39' BS 36 that almost sank when > > they tore the leading edge of one of the keels out of the boat, but > > they managed to beach it, jack the keel back down and weld it back > > together and sail off two days later. Try doing that with a glass > > boat, or even an aluminium one. > > > > In Port townsend right now had a look at that single keeler for > > sale here, looks like the owner dropped the price to 29k,great price, > > no pilot house, looks like it has a shorter mast like 45' off deck no > > roller furler. I don't understand why people forgo the pilot house > > when they put in a dodger anyway, windage is about the same, but it's > > just not inside, integral and warm. steal of a deal though. 1985 that > > must have been around the time you built your boat brent? > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , "brentswain38" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I have not heard of a small steel boat sinking from a collision > > in many years. > > > > > Fibreglass boats can be bought for a fraction the cost of > > materials in them, at the moment. If you want to build something out > > of fibreglass cut out already laid up fibreglass and you only have to > > buy enough materials to do the corners, making it far cheaper. > > > > > > > > > > I only began to really relax underway, when I had my first steel > > hull which could collide with rocks,with no worries whatever. Then > > cruising became infinitely more relaxed and enjoyable. > > > > > However some older fibreglass hulls, while being far better > > boats than newer hulls,are sometimes so cheap as to be considered > > disposable. Then cruising becomes very relaxed, as long as you don't > > spend too much on them. > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , David Frantz > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben; > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't this just a bit overboard? I realize this is a pro steel > > boat forum but this sounds like the same propoganda that is used to > > attack Origami designs. There isn't a year that goes by that I don't > > hear of a steel boat being sunk as a result if striking something. > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously if I didn't believe that a steel boat was better for > > my needs I wouldn't bother to take an interest in this site. However I > > don't at the same time dismiss Fiberglass or other materials. Properly > > implemented any of the common materials can result in a safe boat. It > > is just that few materials are as easy to implement for the amature > > builder. > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally Fiberglass isn't exactly cheap! At least not as a DIY > > venture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David A Frantz > > > > > > > > > > > > websterindustro@ > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 5, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:22:41PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I think I have an idea what you are saying now... > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Yes, scaling by displacement is better, but then, as Gary > > said, there > > > > > > >> is a limit to how thin certain materials can be -- so for > > smaller > > > > > > >> boats one is required to go to less dense, less strong > > materials, but > > > > > > >> make them thicker. For example, a rubber duck is nearly > > > > > > >> indestructible. Rotomoulded plastic is great up to a > > certain size, > > > > > > >> then fibreglass, then aluminum, then, finally, steel is a > > practical > > > > > > >> alternative. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, I agree with your general take on this - but I don't > > know that the > > > > > > > above is a reasonable progression; I suspect that you could > > easily skip > > > > > > > fiberglass and maybe even aluminum in those steps (maybe > > branching Al > > > > > > > off as a parallel option, somewhat equivalent to steel, > > would work > > > > > > > better.) E.g., you could make a rotomolded boat up to, say, > > 20'; in > > > > > > > fact, here's a manufacturer who makes them up to 23': > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.samboats.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After that, as I recall, the smallest Brentboat isn't much > > bigger than > > > > > > > that - and other steel boats have been made in that size or > > smaller. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only reason that fiberglass boats are built at all is the > > > > > > > manufacturer's ease of construction and low cost (you don't > > have to hire > > > > > > > any welders or carpenters to build one; cheap, ignorant > > laborers can > > > > > > > spray up a hull), as well as their desire to create a market > > (and never > > > > > > > mind that people are going to die because they've traded > > away safety for > > > > > > > price, something that's invisible to the layman.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, fiberglass is a catastrophically unsafe > > material for > > > > > > > boat-building - when lined up with rotomolding and steel, it > > is the only > > > > > > > one of the three that will shatter or at least break through > > if it hits > > > > > > > something at speed (which boats do all too often.) This is > > like buying a > > > > > > > car that explodes when you hit something - but, hey, it's > > cheap, it's > > > > > > > transportation, and you really, really promise to be careful! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *BOATS SHOULD FLOAT, NOT SINK* - and we have materials and > > techniques > > > > > > > that allow us to build such boats, and have had them for > > well over a > > > > > > > hundred years (here, I'm speaking of reasonable-sized > > pleasure boats; > > > > > > > those scaling factors under discussion make the average > > freighter, or > > > > > > > something the size of the Titanic, impossible to build with > > that sort of > > > > > > > strength.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not to offend those with fiberglass boats, but - anything > > that can't put > > > > > > > up with running into a half-sunk floating container or > > underwater rocks > > > > > > > at 5kt without being destroyed is not a sea-worthy boat in > > my opinion. > > > > > > > Feel free to think of me as being paranoid if it makes you more > > > > > > > comfortable. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > > > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > > > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom > > programming > > > > > > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3182 - Release Date: 10/07/10 >19:34:00 > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: >origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24164|23988|2010-10-08 12:10:49|h|Re: sunk boats|I had thought of that, I figure at some point when I find either some sewer pipe and threaded cap that'll fit into my vent's for gluing or some nice large threaded SS ones I can weld on. I would think my hatches would be able to hold back the pressure mostly although maybe not the main hatch as it only has one dog. My opening port window would need to be re-engineered, I'd make it the same princible as the hatches. Sealing the hull like that would certainly slow water from coming in. As would having large amounts of foam near the hole, like as I said just above the keels. Hull surface area and deck would be close to 3x36x8 - (space of fuel tank which is about 6x10 and we'll say is full of sea water = 804 square feet x 0.125 feet = 100.5 cubic feet of foam. The internet tells me that 2 pound foam has a floatation value of 60 pound per cubic foot. Mass of whole boat is 22,000 lbs metal volume = 36x8x0.0104 = 3 cubic feet of deck and cabin + 2x36x8x0.015625 = 9 cubic feet of steel for hull + lead 4850/708 = 6.85 cubic feet of lead + keel 8x16x0.0208 = 2.66 cubic feet of 1/4 keel and tank top = 21.5 cubic feet of steel and lead if I were to crush the boat into a cube. not sure where I would go from there I'm thinking 10968/60 = 182.8 cubic feet of foam for neutral buoyancy.| 24165|23988|2010-10-08 12:11:14|Matt Malone|Re: sunk boats|Remember that 7 tons of iron under water only weighs 6 tons so 7 tons of iron ballast only requires a little less than 6 cubic meters air to float it - 6'6" x 9'9" x 3'3" -- about the size of the main walkway though the cabin. If your boat is using lead for ballast, then a little less than 6.5 cubic meters of air is needed. Sizing the buoyancy to the displacement of the vessel automatically guarantees a wide margin of safety vs. sinking, even on the ballast. A pilot house is handy because in a "sunk" boat, flooded, but floating on trapped buoyancy, it might be the only place that is reasonably dry while one waits out the trouble. Note also as boats fill with water, they gain more ultimate stability vs. inversion, but they become less stiff about the upright position. As a result they will tend to heel and wallow significantly and slowly, more and slower than when dry. Once flooded enough, they will inevitably return to to a mast-above-horizontal orientation, no matter how far they heel. A pilot house that can be hatched-off from the interior of the boat will act as a buoyant bubble (like anti-ballast) on the top of the whale, helping keep the boat upright. I wager this would be far more comfortable (but not necessarily as ultimately safe) in any seas than a rubber life raft that would toss a great deal more. The pilot house in a flooded boat would become a more solid target for waves to break against, increasing the forces it would have to withstand -- making it smaller and stronger makes it more of a refuge. A pilot house that is the size of a small car interior still has about 8,000 pounds of buoyancy of air in it. Give it a low profile, a strong frame, a comfortable chair and an inside steering position. It will have none of the disadvantages of a "large" (standing) pilot house, will be comfortable in rough weather, and will double as a refuge that one will enjoy a lot more than a rubber raft. Top off the pilot house by giving it its own small bilge. When the boat is flooded, this bilge may be below the water line so if one gives it a drain for more ordinary times, make sure there is a one-way valve in the line or best, a threaded plug that can be installed to prevent back-flooding into this bilge. Then install a hand or foot-operated bilge pump that dumps water out of the pilot house, into the cockpit for instance. Add some sort of small well-sealed emergency dry locker of supplies and this pilot house can be called the primary life raft. In more ordinary foul weather, one can leave their foul weather gear in the pilot house, over its bilge, to help keep water out of the main cabin. Watch the chain locker. Once the boat fills with water, the distribution of weight and buoyancy is not the same. A boat, perhaps with 100m of chain stowed in the front, might prefer to sink first at the bow. This would upset the plan considerably. Everyone's chain locker is different, but mine is big enough for 3 kids to have a tea party in. The interior volume is angular and poorly used in most chain lockers, with the chain at the bottom of a narrowing V, and the area under the deck, toward the edges, completely unused, except when the boat inverts and the chain falls up into the top of the locker. It seems to me, most of the top of the chain locker could be blocked in with floatation. Even 4 cubic feet of floatation concentrated in the bow, giving 260 pounds of buoyancy, would produce a significant fore-aft pitching moment about the center of mass of the boat to resist the boat sinking at the bow. Most boats have 4 cubic feet of empty jugs, water or fuel containers that could be put forward in the chain locker in an emergency. Building in durable floatation would be better of course. I could easily get 10 cubic feet of floatation in without interfering with the chain in my locker. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: svseeker@... Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 19:06:45 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: sunk boats 7 tons of ballast = 14000 pounds / 65 pounds per cubic foot of water = 215 cubic feet of air or foam or a hunk of space that is 6 x 6 x 6. Pluss additional for non-buoyant cargo and materials like anchors, chain, engines, winches. That gets offset some by buoyant cargo like life jackets, but only if after that stuff is submerged. Something that would work, but which requires lots of work, inconvenience and money; would be to build your hull so that it can be sealed air tight allowing you to trap a large volume of air inside. You'll need hatches that dog down or open inward with air tight seals. This includes all entrances into your hull, including portals, your ventilation systems, exhaust, etc. It all would need to withstand about 4 psi of internal pressure. Doug ArgonautJr.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24166|24156|2010-10-08 14:05:01|brentswain38|Re: sunk boats--wheel house and hull joints|They cut the wheelhouse off in the bare primer stage. It was similar to wheelhouses I put on most of my 36 footers today. I don't have any photos. The reason I don't like to make the transition from steel to aluminium at the deck edge, is because the hull deck joint takes the entire twisting load of the hull. That is why they had so many problems there on fibreglass hulls. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > Brent: > Is there a photo of a boat with the wheelhouse?? > > Regarding hull joints--When I worked at one custom yacht company the fiberglass hulls had a flange facing inward on which strips of grey butyl (the window stuff in paper covered roll) was placed on the flange and then a ribbed vinly piece which I think had something to do with swimming pool joints and then more butyl on top of that. An L shaped proprietary aluminum piece with flathead bolt holes alread machined in it about 4" centres was then bolted (1/4" can't remember if lock nuts but washers definitely). The butyl squeezed out the sides which you want to avoid by placing it a bit back of the edge since it was a pain to clean. It took 2 of us about a day. Maybe this would work with an aluminum deck with some excellent goop under the bolt heads to stop electrolosis?? The joint was finished with something?? > > MarkH > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24167|23988|2010-10-08 14:10:11|brentswain38|Re: sunk boats|If you don't leave a drainage area in the low point in your hull, where water can drain out of the foam, the foam will gradually absorb a lot of water ,eventually causing severe corrosion problems.That is why I prefer to leave the area under the floor, foam free. If that area is foam filled , cut it out, and use carpet on the floor and foam on the undersides of the floor boards for insulation. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > yeah that would destroy most any boat, Matthias showed me some pictures of the damage after, the water line was way up high, it would be interesting to know how much floatation the foam gives these boats. The foamers filled the whole area between my keel supports, totally covered them before I could stop them, theres like 4 or 5 inches of foam there which I'm sure will help give me more time if I ever start taking on water. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I built that hull with a wheelhouse. A yachtie trendy dude named Tony talked him into making it look "Yachtie"( which means naive), and cut the wheelhouse off. > > Most boats with a wheelhouse sell for 10K more than sister ships without one. > > When that 40 footer hit the rock with the keel, she was doing 14 knots thru Boat Passage, south of Georgeson pass. She wasn't built to the plans, used flatbar instead of angle for the keel supports and didn't have the tank( which is structural) between the keels. > > It was the trailing edge which was forced thru the hull plate. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > > > > > Well there was that stretched to 39' BS 36 that almost sank when they tore the leading edge of one of the keels out of the boat, but they managed to beach it, jack the keel back down and weld it back together and sail off two days later. Try doing that with a glass boat, or even an aluminium one. > > > In Port townsend right now had a look at that single keeler for sale here, looks like the owner dropped the price to 29k,great price, no pilot house, looks like it has a shorter mast like 45' off deck no roller furler. I don't understand why people forgo the pilot house when they put in a dodger anyway, windage is about the same, but it's just not inside, integral and warm. steal of a deal though. 1985 that must have been around the time you built your boat brent? > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > I have not heard of a small steel boat sinking from a collision in many years. > > > > Fibreglass boats can be bought for a fraction the cost of materials in them, at the moment. If you want to build something out of fibreglass cut out already laid up fibreglass and you only have to buy enough materials to do the corners, making it far cheaper. > > > > > > > > I only began to really relax underway, when I had my first steel hull which could collide with rocks,with no worries whatever. Then cruising became infinitely more relaxed and enjoyable. > > > > However some older fibreglass hulls, while being far better boats than newer hulls,are sometimes so cheap as to be considered disposable. Then cruising becomes very relaxed, as long as you don't spend too much on them. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ben; > > > > > > > > > > Isn't this just a bit overboard? I realize this is a pro steel boat forum but this sounds like the same propoganda that is used to attack Origami designs. There isn't a year that goes by that I don't hear of a steel boat being sunk as a result if striking something. > > > > > > > > > > Obviously if I didn't believe that a steel boat was better for my needs I wouldn't bother to take an interest in this site. However I don't at the same time dismiss Fiberglass or other materials. Properly implemented any of the common materials can result in a safe boat. It is just that few materials are as easy to implement for the amature builder. > > > > > > > > > > Finally Fiberglass isn't exactly cheap! At least not as a DIY venture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David A Frantz > > > > > > > > > > websterindustro@ > > > > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 5, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:22:41PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I think I have an idea what you are saying now... > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Yes, scaling by displacement is better, but then, as Gary said, there > > > > > >> is a limit to how thin certain materials can be -- so for smaller > > > > > >> boats one is required to go to less dense, less strong materials, but > > > > > >> make them thicker. For example, a rubber duck is nearly > > > > > >> indestructible. Rotomoulded plastic is great up to a certain size, > > > > > >> then fibreglass, then aluminum, then, finally, steel is a practical > > > > > >> alternative. > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, I agree with your general take on this - but I don't know that the > > > > > > above is a reasonable progression; I suspect that you could easily skip > > > > > > fiberglass and maybe even aluminum in those steps (maybe branching Al > > > > > > off as a parallel option, somewhat equivalent to steel, would work > > > > > > better.) E.g., you could make a rotomolded boat up to, say, 20'; in > > > > > > fact, here's a manufacturer who makes them up to 23': > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.samboats.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > After that, as I recall, the smallest Brentboat isn't much bigger than > > > > > > that - and other steel boats have been made in that size or smaller. > > > > > > > > > > > > The only reason that fiberglass boats are built at all is the > > > > > > manufacturer's ease of construction and low cost (you don't have to hire > > > > > > any welders or carpenters to build one; cheap, ignorant laborers can > > > > > > spray up a hull), as well as their desire to create a market (and never > > > > > > mind that people are going to die because they've traded away safety for > > > > > > price, something that's invisible to the layman.) > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, fiberglass is a catastrophically unsafe material for > > > > > > boat-building - when lined up with rotomolding and steel, it is the only > > > > > > one of the three that will shatter or at least break through if it hits > > > > > > something at speed (which boats do all too often.) This is like buying a > > > > > > car that explodes when you hit something - but, hey, it's cheap, it's > > > > > > transportation, and you really, really promise to be careful! > > > > > > > > > > > > *BOATS SHOULD FLOAT, NOT SINK* - and we have materials and techniques > > > > > > that allow us to build such boats, and have had them for well over a > > > > > > hundred years (here, I'm speaking of reasonable-sized pleasure boats; > > > > > > those scaling factors under discussion make the average freighter, or > > > > > > something the size of the Titanic, impossible to build with that sort of > > > > > > strength.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Not to offend those with fiberglass boats, but - anything that can't put > > > > > > up with running into a half-sunk floating container or underwater rocks > > > > > > at 5kt without being destroyed is not a sea-worthy boat in my opinion. > > > > > > Feel free to think of me as being paranoid if it makes you more > > > > > > comfortable. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > > > > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | 24168|23988|2010-10-08 14:16:07|brentswain38|Re: sunk boats|Tape a piece of one inch foam to a piece of 1/8th inch plate, and throw it in the water.. One inch foam will float 1/8th inch plate, 1 1/2 inch will float 3/16th plate. All you have to do is give her a percentage overkill to allow for the weight of ballast , engine, stringers, other structural steel, and anything which won't float. Your woodwork has as much buoyancy as it's dry weight, as does your mast. Voids can be more cheaply filled by throwing in plastic bottles and salvaged foam before spray foaming them in. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > I think additional flotation given by foaming could be estimated by taking combined plates area from material list. > > (Area_of_metal x thickness_of_foam) x (water_density - foam_density) > > Correct me if I am missing something. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > > > it would be interesting to know how much floatation the foam gives these boats. The foamers filled the whole area between my keel supports, totally covered them before I could stop them, theres like 4 or 5 inches of foam there which I'm sure will help give me more time if I ever start taking on water. > > > | 24169|23988|2010-10-08 14:17:41|brentswain38|Re: sunk boats|It could be done, just means giving up some interior and storage space. 3 inch foam would definitely make her unsinkable. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > how thick would it need to float the boat if we include the ballast, would it be logical? > Martin. > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: opusnz@... > > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:11:05 +1300 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: sunk boats > > > > 1 inch of foam will float 1/8 inch of steel. When I cut out one of my > > portholes, I threw it in a bucket of water and it floated. If it wasn't > > for the ballast, I think the typical foamed hull with it's interior > > woodwork would be unsinkable. It would be an awfully wet ride though. > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > On 10/8/2010 1:22 PM, h wrote: > > > > > > yeah that would destroy most any boat, Matthias showed me some > > > pictures of the damage after, the water line was way up high, it would > > > be interesting to know how much floatation the foam gives these boats. > > > The foamers filled the whole area between my keel supports, totally > > > covered them before I could stop them, theres like 4 or 5 inches of > > > foam there which I'm sure will help give me more time if I ever start > > > taking on water. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > , "brentswain38" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I built that hull with a wheelhouse. A yachtie trendy dude named > > > Tony talked him into making it look "Yachtie"( which means naive), and > > > cut the wheelhouse off. > > > > Most boats with a wheelhouse sell for 10K more than sister ships > > > without one. > > > > When that 40 footer hit the rock with the keel, she was doing 14 > > > knots thru Boat Passage, south of Georgeson pass. She wasn't built to > > > the plans, used flatbar instead of angle for the keel supports and > > > didn't have the tank( which is structural) between the keels. > > > > It was the trailing edge which was forced thru the hull plate. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > , "h" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Well there was that stretched to 39' BS 36 that almost sank when > > > they tore the leading edge of one of the keels out of the boat, but > > > they managed to beach it, jack the keel back down and weld it back > > > together and sail off two days later. Try doing that with a glass > > > boat, or even an aluminium one. > > > > > In Port townsend right now had a look at that single keeler for > > > sale here, looks like the owner dropped the price to 29k,great price, > > > no pilot house, looks like it has a shorter mast like 45' off deck no > > > roller furler. I don't understand why people forgo the pilot house > > > when they put in a dodger anyway, windage is about the same, but it's > > > just not inside, integral and warm. steal of a deal though. 1985 that > > > must have been around the time you built your boat brent? > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > , "brentswain38" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not heard of a small steel boat sinking from a collision > > > in many years. > > > > > > Fibreglass boats can be bought for a fraction the cost of > > > materials in them, at the moment. If you want to build something out > > > of fibreglass cut out already laid up fibreglass and you only have to > > > buy enough materials to do the corners, making it far cheaper. > > > > > > > > > > > > I only began to really relax underway, when I had my first steel > > > hull which could collide with rocks,with no worries whatever. Then > > > cruising became infinitely more relaxed and enjoyable. > > > > > > However some older fibreglass hulls, while being far better > > > boats than newer hulls,are sometimes so cheap as to be considered > > > disposable. Then cruising becomes very relaxed, as long as you don't > > > spend too much on them. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > , David Frantz > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't this just a bit overboard? I realize this is a pro steel > > > boat forum but this sounds like the same propoganda that is used to > > > attack Origami designs. There isn't a year that goes by that I don't > > > hear of a steel boat being sunk as a result if striking something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously if I didn't believe that a steel boat was better for > > > my needs I wouldn't bother to take an interest in this site. However I > > > don't at the same time dismiss Fiberglass or other materials. Properly > > > implemented any of the common materials can result in a safe boat. It > > > is just that few materials are as easy to implement for the amature > > > builder. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally Fiberglass isn't exactly cheap! At least not as a DIY > > > venture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David A Frantz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > websterindustro@ > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 5, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:22:41PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> I think I have an idea what you are saying now... > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Yes, scaling by displacement is better, but then, as Gary > > > said, there > > > > > > > >> is a limit to how thin certain materials can be -- so for > > > smaller > > > > > > > >> boats one is required to go to less dense, less strong > > > materials, but > > > > > > > >> make them thicker. For example, a rubber duck is nearly > > > > > > > >> indestructible. Rotomoulded plastic is great up to a > > > certain size, > > > > > > > >> then fibreglass, then aluminum, then, finally, steel is a > > > practical > > > > > > > >> alternative. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, I agree with your general take on this - but I don't > > > know that the > > > > > > > > above is a reasonable progression; I suspect that you could > > > easily skip > > > > > > > > fiberglass and maybe even aluminum in those steps (maybe > > > branching Al > > > > > > > > off as a parallel option, somewhat equivalent to steel, > > > would work > > > > > > > > better.) E.g., you could make a rotomolded boat up to, say, > > > 20'; in > > > > > > > > fact, here's a manufacturer who makes them up to 23': > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.samboats.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After that, as I recall, the smallest Brentboat isn't much > > > bigger than > > > > > > > > that - and other steel boats have been made in that size or > > > smaller. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only reason that fiberglass boats are built at all is the > > > > > > > > manufacturer's ease of construction and low cost (you don't > > > have to hire > > > > > > > > any welders or carpenters to build one; cheap, ignorant > > > laborers can > > > > > > > > spray up a hull), as well as their desire to create a market > > > (and never > > > > > > > > mind that people are going to die because they've traded > > > away safety for > > > > > > > > price, something that's invisible to the layman.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, fiberglass is a catastrophically unsafe > > > material for > > > > > > > > boat-building - when lined up with rotomolding and steel, it > > > is the only > > > > > > > > one of the three that will shatter or at least break through > > > if it hits > > > > > > > > something at speed (which boats do all too often.) This is > > > like buying a > > > > > > > > car that explodes when you hit something - but, hey, it's > > > cheap, it's > > > > > > > > transportation, and you really, really promise to be careful! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *BOATS SHOULD FLOAT, NOT SINK* - and we have materials and > > > techniques > > > > > > > > that allow us to build such boats, and have had them for > > > well over a > > > > > > > > hundred years (here, I'm speaking of reasonable-sized > > > pleasure boats; > > > > > > > > those scaling factors under discussion make the average > > > freighter, or > > > > > > > > something the size of the Titanic, impossible to build with > > > that sort of > > > > > > > > strength.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not to offend those with fiberglass boats, but - anything > > > that can't put > > > > > > > > up with running into a half-sunk floating container or > > > underwater rocks > > > > > > > > at 5kt without being destroyed is not a sea-worthy boat in > > > my opinion. > > > > > > > > Feel free to think of me as being paranoid if it makes you more > > > > > > > > comfortable. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > > > > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > > > > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom > > > programming > > > > > > > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3182 - Release Date: 10/07/10 19:34:00 > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24170|23988|2010-10-08 17:15:06|martin demers|Re: sunk boats|if only 3in. of foam can make it unsinkable it is surprising to see that nobody does it? To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 18:17:31 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: sunk boats It could be done, just means giving up some interior and storage space. 3 inch foam would definitely make her unsinkable. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > how thick would it need to float the boat if we include the ballast, would it be logical? > Martin. > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: opusnz@... > > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:11:05 +1300 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: sunk boats > > > > 1 inch of foam will float 1/8 inch of steel. When I cut out one of my > > portholes, I threw it in a bucket of water and it floated. If it wasn't > > for the ballast, I think the typical foamed hull with it's interior > > woodwork would be unsinkable. It would be an awfully wet ride though. > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > On 10/8/2010 1:22 PM, h wrote: > > > > > > yeah that would destroy most any boat, Matthias showed me some > > > pictures of the damage after, the water line was way up high, it would > > > be interesting to know how much floatation the foam gives these boats. > > > The foamers filled the whole area between my keel supports, totally > > > covered them before I could stop them, theres like 4 or 5 inches of > > > foam there which I'm sure will help give me more time if I ever start > > > taking on water. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > , "brentswain38" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I built that hull with a wheelhouse. A yachtie trendy dude named > > > Tony talked him into making it look "Yachtie"( which means naive), and > > > cut the wheelhouse off. > > > > Most boats with a wheelhouse sell for 10K more than sister ships > > > without one. > > > > When that 40 footer hit the rock with the keel, she was doing 14 > > > knots thru Boat Passage, south of Georgeson pass. She wasn't built to > > > the plans, used flatbar instead of angle for the keel supports and > > > didn't have the tank( which is structural) between the keels. > > > > It was the trailing edge which was forced thru the hull plate. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > , "h" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Well there was that stretched to 39' BS 36 that almost sank when > > > they tore the leading edge of one of the keels out of the boat, but > > > they managed to beach it, jack the keel back down and weld it back > > > together and sail off two days later. Try doing that with a glass > > > boat, or even an aluminium one. > > > > > In Port townsend right now had a look at that single keeler for > > > sale here, looks like the owner dropped the price to 29k,great price, > > > no pilot house, looks like it has a shorter mast like 45' off deck no > > > roller furler. I don't understand why people forgo the pilot house > > > when they put in a dodger anyway, windage is about the same, but it's > > > just not inside, integral and warm. steal of a deal though. 1985 that > > > must have been around the time you built your boat brent? > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > , "brentswain38" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I have not heard of a small steel boat sinking from a collision > > > in many years. > > > > > > Fibreglass boats can be bought for a fraction the cost of > > > materials in them, at the moment. If you want to build something out > > > of fibreglass cut out already laid up fibreglass and you only have to > > > buy enough materials to do the corners, making it far cheaper. > > > > > > > > > > > > I only began to really relax underway, when I had my first steel > > > hull which could collide with rocks,with no worries whatever. Then > > > cruising became infinitely more relaxed and enjoyable. > > > > > > However some older fibreglass hulls, while being far better > > > boats than newer hulls,are sometimes so cheap as to be considered > > > disposable. Then cruising becomes very relaxed, as long as you don't > > > spend too much on them. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > , David Frantz > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't this just a bit overboard? I realize this is a pro steel > > > boat forum but this sounds like the same propoganda that is used to > > > attack Origami designs. There isn't a year that goes by that I don't > > > hear of a steel boat being sunk as a result if striking something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously if I didn't believe that a steel boat was better for > > > my needs I wouldn't bother to take an interest in this site. However I > > > don't at the same time dismiss Fiberglass or other materials. Properly > > > implemented any of the common materials can result in a safe boat. It > > > is just that few materials are as easy to implement for the amature > > > builder. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally Fiberglass isn't exactly cheap! At least not as a DIY > > > venture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David A Frantz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > websterindustro@ > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 5, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:22:41PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> I think I have an idea what you are saying now... > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Yes, scaling by displacement is better, but then, as Gary > > > said, there > > > > > > > >> is a limit to how thin certain materials can be -- so for > > > smaller > > > > > > > >> boats one is required to go to less dense, less strong > > > materials, but > > > > > > > >> make them thicker. For example, a rubber duck is nearly > > > > > > > >> indestructible. Rotomoulded plastic is great up to a > > > certain size, > > > > > > > >> then fibreglass, then aluminum, then, finally, steel is a > > > practical > > > > > > > >> alternative. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, I agree with your general take on this - but I don't > > > know that the > > > > > > > > above is a reasonable progression; I suspect that you could > > > easily skip > > > > > > > > fiberglass and maybe even aluminum in those steps (maybe > > > branching Al > > > > > > > > off as a parallel option, somewhat equivalent to steel, > > > would work > > > > > > > > better.) E.g., you could make a rotomolded boat up to, say, > > > 20'; in > > > > > > > > fact, here's a manufacturer who makes them up to 23': > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.samboats.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After that, as I recall, the smallest Brentboat isn't much > > > bigger than > > > > > > > > that - and other steel boats have been made in that size or > > > smaller. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only reason that fiberglass boats are built at all is the > > > > > > > > manufacturer's ease of construction and low cost (you don't > > > have to hire > > > > > > > > any welders or carpenters to build one; cheap, ignorant > > > laborers can > > > > > > > > spray up a hull), as well as their desire to create a market > > > (and never > > > > > > > > mind that people are going to die because they've traded > > > away safety for > > > > > > > > price, something that's invisible to the layman.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, fiberglass is a catastrophically unsafe > > > material for > > > > > > > > boat-building - when lined up with rotomolding and steel, it > > > is the only > > > > > > > > one of the three that will shatter or at least break through > > > if it hits > > > > > > > > something at speed (which boats do all too often.) This is > > > like buying a > > > > > > > > car that explodes when you hit something - but, hey, it's > > > cheap, it's > > > > > > > > transportation, and you really, really promise to be careful! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *BOATS SHOULD FLOAT, NOT SINK* - and we have materials and > > > techniques > > > > > > > > that allow us to build such boats, and have had them for > > > well over a > > > > > > > > hundred years (here, I'm speaking of reasonable-sized > > > pleasure boats; > > > > > > > > those scaling factors under discussion make the average > > > freighter, or > > > > > > > > something the size of the Titanic, impossible to build with > > > that sort of > > > > > > > > strength.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not to offend those with fiberglass boats, but - anything > > > that can't put > > > > > > > > up with running into a half-sunk floating container or > > > underwater rocks > > > > > > > > at 5kt without being destroyed is not a sea-worthy boat in > > > my opinion. > > > > > > > > Feel free to think of me as being paranoid if it makes you more > > > > > > > > comfortable. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > > > > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > > > > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom > > > programming > > > > > > > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3182 - Release Date: 10/07/10 19:34:00 > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24171|23988|2010-10-08 17:39:24|Paul Wilson|Re: sunk boats|On a small boat, 3 inches of foam will make the interior a lot smaller than you think. For instance, 3 inches of foam would make the floor area much smaller and it would be much harder to walk around. If the hull is steel and you have good strong hatches and through hulls, it is hard for me to think of a situation where it would fill with water. A bad or siphoning hose on a through hull is probably most likely but if you are on board this can be stopped. If you are away, you can close your through hulls before you leave if you are really worried about it. Cheers, Paul On 10/9/2010 10:15 AM, martin demers wrote: > if only 3in. of foam can make it unsinkable it is surprising to see that nobody does it? > > | 24172|23988|2010-10-08 17:48:10|Matt Malone|Re: sunk boats|> if only 3in. of foam can make it unsinkable it is surprising to see that nobody does it? 3 inches of foam is not cheap. Foam is not that attractive and demands to be covered, at least in some people's minds -- I think there is one person like this for every boat. Foam is easily damaged and worn. If this is a problem, like in the floors of lockers, then another layer of material must be added in addition to the foam. It is more work and complication. Foaming is just one more thing that gets in the way when one has still not gotten the plumbing and electrical to their 100% final state -- it is too easy and too inviting to go sailing before all work is 100% done. Finally, and rightfully so, most people do not go that far or that unfamiliar, either to them or many other cruisers, and with the toughness of a steel boat and the unlikely outcome of a puncture, foaming is not a high priority on the list of things to do. Lots of cheap fibreglass boats around them had not sunk, and the steel boat is typically far more secure. It is easy not to get around to installing something that would get in my way a lot and seem to lead to a lot more work. Some might be inclined to foam. I am more inclined to install bulkheads with doors. The interior volume of a boat is huge. Just two bulkheads to divide up the volume and it would be really hard to sink. Three and it would be next to impossible, but then you need a bulkhead through the middle of the main volume of the boat. Foam also guarantees that all of the boat gets completely wet up to the coach roof. Bulkheads mean, one or two sections get wet. Something is almost certain to stay completely dry. Doors only have to be water tight enough that you can stay ahead of it by pumping. If the door starts 2 feet up from the floor level, this significantly lowers the force on the door and the design demands and potential leakage. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24173|23988|2010-10-08 18:39:02|Ben Okopnik|Re: sunk boats|On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 05:15:03PM -0400, martin demers wrote: > > if only 3in. of foam can make it unsinkable it is surprising to see that nobody does it? Long-distance cruising sailors, and our kind of thinking, are not the mainstream part of the market; most of what's sold in "yachty" stores and dealerships isn't intended for us. The default set of features in boats today is intended for a certain kind of sailor; if you're never going to sail off-shore, then things like built-in flotation are just a "waste of space" which can be used to store important things like cocktail napkins and swizzle sticks. Heck, at that point, there's nothing wrong with a 1/8"-thick fiberglass hull, either: it keeps out the water _and_ looks pretty and shiny. Why would you ever want anything else? :) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24174|23988|2010-10-08 18:45:59|Ben Okopnik|Re: sunk boats|On Sat, Oct 09, 2010 at 10:40:21AM +1300, Paul Wilson wrote: > If the hull is steel and you have good strong hatches and through hulls, > it is hard for me to think of a situation where it would fill with > water. "Atom _is_ my lifeboat." -- Jean Gau, skipper of 'Atom', circumnavigator, when asked about a lifeboat -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24175|23988|2010-10-08 18:58:37|John Riehl|Re: aluminum trimaran?|Denis, I think I see the problem now.  There's a difference between displacement and the weight of the boat.  Let's talk about weight first.  Think about the weight of the plating...if I take a 1 meter by 1 meter piece of 1 cm steel plate (weight:  78.5 kg) and scale it down by length and width but not thickness by a factor of 10, the new weight will be 0.785 kg.  In other words, the weight goes down by a factor of 100, because the weight of steel is a function of volume, not linear dimension, and scaling the width *and* the length by 10 scales the volume down by 100.  Of course, one wouldn't leave the same thickness of plate or same specification for other structural members when scaling down from the USS Independence to the S/V Dreamboat...so the actual reduction in weight is much more than a factor of 100 (but probably not the full 1000).   Now for displacement.  I look at displacement as first a design figure.  From the design perspective, the designer figures out what the design waterline (DWL) of the boat is to be, then computes the displacement (the volume below the waterline, expressed in terms of the weight of that volume of water).  He/she then looks at the weight of the boat in its normally loaded configuration (hull, rigging, fuel, stores, cargo, etc).  If he/she has done the job right, the two weights match fairly closely. So let's go back to my example.  Our boat is a cube open at the top, and I've determined that the DWL is to be at the 50 meter line of the hull.  That translates to a design displacement of 513,500 metric tonnes (the weight of 500,000 cubic meters of water).  Let's say further that I'm building the boat from 5 cm thick steel plate with no internal framing (total weight 19,625 metric tonnes) and intend for it to carry an additional 500,000 metric tonnes of stuff.  So the total weight is 519,625 metric tonnes, which matches pretty well with my design displacement. Now let's do the same scaling--by a factor of 10.  My design displacement is now 513.5 metric tonnes (the weight of 500 cubic meters of water).  Since it's smaller, I don't have to use 5 cm thick steel plate...but let's say that going down by a factor of 10 on the thickness of the plate is structurally unsound (don't know if that's true, but it makes the example more interesting).  So, I'm going to build my boat from 1 cm plate.  The weight of the boat is now 39.25 metric tonnes (scaled down by 500x from the larger design), which means I can carry 474.25 metric tonnes of stuff to get my boat to sit at its DWL. Hope that helps clear things up.  I'm not a boat designer, so those more knowledgable may feel free to correct any boneheaded statements above. John  ________________________________ From: Denis Buggy To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, October 7, 2010 7:00:17 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran?   JOHN Thank you for your reply and you do explain yourself clearly --and I must also thank all who took the trouble to reply to me including Gary and matt . I do understand what you are saying re volume however I am unsure when I look at the weight issue . the displacement arises because the weight of the ship displaces water to the weight of 2784 tons which equals 2784 cubic meters of seawater as 1 cubic meter = 1 metric tonne of water at 4 degrees there fore 10% of 2784 is 278.4 tons if you scale the ship back . I would not pursue this except I am making a scale model to check something and I suspect I may be ignorant of something very basic and get the whole thing wrong . regards Denis buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: John Riehl To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Cc: Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 8:43 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? Dennis Displacement is a function of volume, not linear dimension. Imagine a floating cube 100 m long, 100 m wide, and 100 m deep with a draft of 50 m. It will displace 500,000 cubic meters of sea water. Now scale that cube by a factor of 10%. The new dimensions are 10 m long, 10 m wide, and 5 m of draft. This cube displaces 500 cubic meters. Hope that helps Sent from my iPhone On Oct 5, 2010, at 3:34 PM, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > THANKS GARY FOR YOUR REPLY I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD SCALE 10.58 AND >THEN 1000 --IS THE DISPLACEMENT NOT DEFINED BY THE RESULTING SCALED DOWN CRAFT >REGARDLESS OF YOUR 1000 . > THE ORIGINAL HAS MASSIVE TONNAGE OF FUEL FOR 40 KNOTS SPEED FOR 4000 MILES >CHOPPERS AND 20 FULL SIZE CONTAINERS TRANSPORTED ON AN INTERNAL LIFT SYSTEM >BETWEEN FLOORS ---IT IS ALWAYS GOING TO SCALE HEAVY EVEN THOUGH IT IS ALUMINIUM >BUT 263 TONS IS STILL WAY OUT FOR A 40 FT VESSEL . REGARDS DENIS BUGGY > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gary H. Lucas > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 3:50 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? > > Denis, > The dimensions scale that way, but displacement is closer to the scaling of the >volume of the hull. So you'd divide the displace by about 1000. This results in >a displacement that is a little light, which I think makes sense because you are >limited by how thin the hull materials can be, probably not 1/10th of the full >size ship. Make sense? > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Denis Buggy > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 6:11 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] aluminum trimaran? > > DEAR JOHN AND ALL WITH A CLUE -- > > if I scale the USS independence to fit Johns request I get figures which make >no sense to me maybe somebody can explain -------------- > USS INDEPENDENCE PRESENTLY ---- 127 METERS LONG BY 32 METERS BEAM--- >DISPLACEMENT 2784 TONS---- 14 FT DRAFT === > TO MAKE IT JOHNS 12 METER /40FT BOAT IT REQUIRES A SCALE OF 10.58 TO CONVERT >--THEREFORE > > > 127 X 32 X 2784 TONS DIVIDED BY 10.58 WOULD SCALE === 12M LONG --BEAM 3.02 >WEIGHT 263 TONS DISPLACEMENT ??? > HARDLY CORRECT --CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN regards Denis > ----- Original Message ----- > From: jhess314 > > - > > I've been searching through this forum looking for information about whether it >is practical to build the hull of a cruising 35'-40' trimaran out of aluminum >using the origami technique? So far I've only found a few references to aluminum >trimarans, and none actually designed or built. I suppose that not finding >anything definitive is an answer in itself, but I thought I'd ask anyway. I'm >more interested in a tri that could carry the load the a cruiser would require, >rather than being light and fast. > Thanks, > John > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > Gary H. Lucas > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24176|23988|2010-10-08 22:11:22|wild_explorer|Re: sunk boats|Does anybody know how much 15 cub.m of foaming cost? For 40 footer we can take 12.5 cub.m displacement as an example. To be on the safe side, let say 15 cub.m. If hull's area is 100 sq.m, it will be about 150mm (~6 in) for foam thickness. Looks reasonable for 40 footer... Some not very usable areas could take more than 6 inches of foam. All others approaches for boat safety is good as always, just want to know the cost of this option... Another question. Does foam really absorbs water? I thought it has closed cells. Any comments on this one? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > if only 3in. of foam can make it unsinkable it is surprising to see that nobody does it? > > 3 inches of foam is not cheap. Foam is not that attractive and demands to be covered, at least in some people's minds -- I think | 24177|23988|2010-10-08 23:54:52|Matt Malone|Re: sunk boats|>Another question. Does foam really absorbs water? I thought it has closed cells. Any comments on this one? It depends entirely on the foam, but yes, foam can double its weight overnight in water and it never dries out properly afterward. Based on laboratory testing I did. I would like to try the Tiger Foam to see about it. It looks awefully handy http://www.tigerfoam.ca/foamkit.php 600 bft = 50 cubic feet = $760 >Does anybody know how much 15 cub.m of foaming cost? About 33 cubic feet in a cubic meter so... $8,000 (10 kits) using Tiger Foam ? Math is not exact, but you get the idea. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24178|23988|2010-10-09 01:42:02|David Frantz|Re: sunk boats|Thanks for the link. That was one supplier I had not heard of. I also liked the plain talk in the FAQ. David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Oct 8, 2010, at 11:54 PM, Matt Malone wrote: > >> Another question. Does foam really absorbs water? I thought it has closed cells. Any comments on this one? > > > It depends entirely on the foam, but yes, foam can double its weight > overnight in water and it never dries out properly afterward. Based on > laboratory testing I did. I would like to try the Tiger Foam to see about it. It looks awefully handy > > > http://www.tigerfoam.ca/foamkit.php > > 600 bft = 50 cubic feet = $760 > >> Does anybody know how much 15 cub.m of foaming cost? > > > About 33 cubic feet in a cubic meter so... $8,000 (10 kits) using Tiger Foam ? Math is not exact, but you get the idea. > > > Matt > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24179|23988|2010-10-09 03:58:36|wild_explorer|Re: sunk boats|Thanks Matt! Looks like it need to use marine flotation foam with mil specs = expensive... It would be unpractical to use just foam in this case. Probably better to use some kind of "hybrid" approach as Brent suggested to reduce amount of foam required. And as I understand (according information below) "Polyurethane foam in densities of less than 2 pounds per cubic foot may absorb significant amounts of water". Which brings another side effect of using more dense foam - additional weight to a boat. This is some information I found after quick search (original link http://www.uscgboating.org/regulations/boatbuilder_s_handbook/flotation_part2_c.aspx ): Of the many foams available, foamed polystyrene and polyurethane are the most common. They are noted here because of their broad use, but not to the exclusion of other types of flotation material. Foamed polystyrene is a low-cost material produced from expandable beads ("pop corn") or extruded in the form of billets or boards. The common name is "Styrofoam." In its common forms, it is readily dissolved in gasoline and is highly flammable. There are special compounds of polystyrene foam that are solvent-resistant and self-extinguishing. One objection to foamed polystyrene is that it cannot be foamed in place, and it usually cannot be produced in a boat builder's plant. Caution is necessary because some varieties have "wormholes" which reduce the flotation value. Polyurethane foam is another widely used buoyancy material. It is usually foamed in place or molded into specific shapes before installation. It is also available in slabs and billets. Polyurethane foam is normally highly resistant to gasoline and oil, particularly in densities of 4.0 pounds per cubic foot and higher. Even in densities of 1.5 to 2 pounds per cubic foot, it is considered very resistant to gasoline and oil. Polyurethane foam is flammable, but it can be made self-extinguishing. In densities of less than 2 pounds per cubic foot, it may absorb significant amounts of water. Air chambers used to achieve flotation are usually made of plastic materials. They must be capable of withstanding the same solvent-resistance tests as other flotation materials, and they must pass the required 18-hour submergence preconditioning before undergoing the flotation tests. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > >Another question. Does foam really absorbs water? I thought it has closed cells. Any comments on this one? > > > It depends entirely on the foam, but yes, foam can double its weight > overnight in water and it never dries out properly afterward. Based on > laboratory testing I did. I would like to try the Tiger Foam to see about it. It looks awefully handy > > > http://www.tigerfoam.ca/foamkit.php > > 600 bft = 50 cubic feet = $760 > > >Does anybody know how much 15 cub.m of foaming cost? > > > About 33 cubic feet in a cubic meter so... $8,000 (10 kits) using Tiger Foam ? Math is not exact, but you get the idea. > > > Matt | 24180|23988|2010-10-09 08:20:40|Matt Malone|Re: Boat Flotation|Idea: PETE bottles, particularly 2 liter pop bottles. Cost per cubic foot = free in small quantities, like wheel weights. One gets more than 2 kg of buoyancy from each one, slightly less if they are packed tightly together and forced into a rectangular cross-section. That is 500 bottles / tonne of buoyancy. They do not leak. If one does, you can see water in it, empty it out, and reseal it. They are pretty tough. They are easily replaced. They likely make good insulation if packed properly. They give better buoyancy than dense foam. One can remove a few to string more wire or plumbing. You can easily look behind them for signs of rust and do some painting. But you are thinking, 3500 bottles takes up a lot of space. Yes, it would. And more than foam because foam sits right against the hull. They would remove 8 inches of beam from any area where you put them. They will expand and contract with temperature. I expect they will make a rustling noise no matter how one mounts them in a non-permanent way. They are likely nearly as flammable as cheap foam once they get going, if a little less easy to get going. I am using them under the decks of my 16 foot day sailor to make it unsinkable. For a big boat, I prefer bulkheads with sealable doors. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24181|23988|2010-10-09 09:13:47|martin demers|Re: Boat Flotation|Matt, my boat makes 8 tonnes, that would mean 4000 bottles, it seems much more than the 3inches of foam Brent was talking about,what do you think? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: m_j_malone@... Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 08:20:40 -0400 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Boat Flotation Idea: PETE bottles, particularly 2 liter pop bottles. Cost per cubic foot = free in small quantities, like wheel weights. One gets more than 2 kg of buoyancy from each one, slightly less if they are packed tightly together and forced into a rectangular cross-section. That is 500 bottles / tonne of buoyancy. They do not leak. If one does, you can see water in it, empty it out, and reseal it. They are pretty tough. They are easily replaced. They likely make good insulation if packed properly. They give better buoyancy than dense foam. One can remove a few to string more wire or plumbing. You can easily look behind them for signs of rust and do some painting. But you are thinking, 3500 bottles takes up a lot of space. Yes, it would. And more than foam because foam sits right against the hull. They would remove 8 inches of beam from any area where you put them. They will expand and contract with temperature. I expect they will make a rustling noise no matter how one mounts them in a non-permanent way. They are likely nearly as flammable as cheap foam once they get going, if a little less easy to get going. I am using them under the decks of my 16 foot day sailor to make it unsinkable. For a big boat, I prefer bulkheads with sealable doors. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24182|23988|2010-10-09 09:47:30|wild_explorer|Re: Boat Flotation|After reading reviews about usage of foam kits it does not looks like a good option anymore for providing emergency flotation for a big boat. Problems outlined: - foam may not be a good quality (due to temperature, equipment, user, etc) - questionable life time (5-10 years?) - still may absorb water Only recommended options are: the foam in billets for dock building, because it is manufactured in controlled environment under manufacturer's control OR foam blocks covered by sturdy plastic. Kind of inconvenient.... Billets need cutting to fit, blocks have to be fitted in places which have enough room for them. PETE bottles is questionable option according some forums. Watertight bulkheads and lockers looks like the best available option. Back to "good old design".... --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > For a big boat, I prefer bulkheads with sealable doors. > > > Matt | 24183|23988|2010-10-09 10:01:52|SHANE ROTHWELL|Re: sunk boats|a cheap & easy way to add floatation fast is with truck inner tubes I forget the exact calculations, but your bog standard scuba tank holds somewherer in the neibourhood of a cubic meter of air once you empty it into a truck inner tube.   and how many cruisers do not scuba dive?   and how much does a scuba tank cost? not much.   it will also fill virtually any shape or the vast majority of it. then can be tucked away back under the floor boards and with no uv, will last a long time if you grease the fittings...     Posted by: "martin demers" mdemers2005@...   inter4905 Fri Oct 8, 2010 2:15 pm (PDT) if only 3in. of foam can make it unsinkable it is surprising to see that nobody does it? To: origamiboats@ yahoogroups. com From: brentswain38@ hotmail.com Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 18:17:31 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: sunk boats It could be done, just means giving up some interior and storage space. 3 inch foam would definitely make her unsinkable. --- In origamiboats@ yahoogroups. com, martin demers wrote: > > > how thick would it need to float the boat if we include the ballast, would it >be logical? > Martin. | 24184|23988|2010-10-09 10:41:23|martin demers|Re: Boat Flotation|my steel sailboat, build in the '60 uses the same kind of open cell foam we use to make cussions, the sheets are glued to the inside of the hull.good system or not ,I cant say untill I'll sail my boat or if someone with the same kind of insulation could tell about his experience! Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 13:47:28 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Boat Flotation After reading reviews about usage of foam kits it does not looks like a good option anymore for providing emergency flotation for a big boat. Problems outlined: - foam may not be a good quality (due to temperature, equipment, user, etc) - questionable life time (5-10 years?) - still may absorb water Only recommended options are: the foam in billets for dock building, because it is manufactured in controlled environment under manufacturer's control OR foam blocks covered by sturdy plastic. Kind of inconvenient.... Billets need cutting to fit, blocks have to be fitted in places which have enough room for them. PETE bottles is questionable option according some forums. Watertight bulkheads and lockers looks like the best available option. Back to "good old design".... --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > For a big boat, I prefer bulkheads with sealable doors. > > > Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24185|23988|2010-10-09 12:49:57|Ali Alakus|Re: Boat Flotation|Hi, It is a very goad idea using water bottles for buoyancy. Also you can fill them up with sand for a heavier buoyancy. Wet sand will be even heavier and chance of leaking is zero. You want to make it sure, put some cement in the sand, will dry solid and wont leak wont spill around and make a mess even the pet bottle burst some reason.. also some rectangular shaped water bottles available. Happy sailing ali From: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com [mailto:origamiboats@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Matt Malone Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 15:21 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Boat Flotation Idea: PETE bottles, particularly 2 liter pop bottles. Cost per cubic foot = free in small quantities, like wheel weights. One gets more than 2 kg of buoyancy from each one, slightly less if they are packed tightly together and forced into a rectangular cross-section. That is 500 bottles / tonne of buoyancy. They do not leak. If one does, you can see water in it, empty it out, and reseal it. They are pretty tough. They are easily replaced. They likely make good insulation if packed properly. They give better buoyancy than dense foam. One can remove a few to string more wire or plumbing. You can easily look behind them for signs of rust and do some painting. But you are thinking, 3500 bottles takes up a lot of space. Yes, it would. And more than foam because foam sits right against the hull. They would remove 8 inches of beam from any area where you put them. They will expand and contract with temperature. I expect they will make a rustling noise no matter how one mounts them in a non-permanent way. They are likely nearly as flammable as cheap foam once they get going, if a little less easy to get going. I am using them under the decks of my 16 foot day sailor to make it unsinkable. For a big boat, I prefer bulkheads with sealable doors. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24186|23988|2010-10-09 13:46:28|h|Re: sunk boats|well for my 100+ cu.ft, took away three garbage bags of foam after carving probably 3 cu.ft each. And I have more than 1 1/2 inches of foam in places so maybe 120 or 130 cu.ft in total for 1600 CAD --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Does anybody know how much 15 cub.m of foaming cost? > > For 40 footer we can take 12.5 cub.m displacement as an example. To be on the safe side, let say 15 cub.m. If hull's area is 100 sq.m, it will be about 150mm (~6 in) for foam thickness. Looks reasonable for 40 footer... Some not very usable areas could take more than 6 inches of foam. > > All others approaches for boat safety is good as always, just want to know the cost of this option... > > Another question. Does foam really absorbs water? I thought it has closed cells. Any comments on this one? > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > if only 3in. of foam can make it unsinkable it is surprising to see that nobody does it? > > > > 3 inches of foam is not cheap. Foam is not that attractive and demands to be covered, at least in some people's minds -- I think > | 24187|24156|2010-10-09 14:04:53|h|Re: sunk boats--wheel house and hull joints|someone asked me to have a look at that single keeler in Port Townsend, got the broker to let me poke around, It's not sprayfoamed it's laid in panels covered by 1/4" ply. Not done particularly well either there are gaps between the various panels doesn't look like there was any attempt to seal them and make a decent vapor barrier, which I would think is as important as the foam itself, if you're going to insulated it that way. But the hull looks in great shape from the small areas I could look at, small spots here and there in the bilge with rust and some weeping rusty lines, tiny little, looked like a tiny under sized hurth tranny, nice big Mercedes conversion engine. I would say this is a boat that someone built to use on the weekends and keep at the dock, no long distance cruising/livaboard in mind but for 29k it's a great hull and decent rig one could tear out the interior touch up a couple spots and sprayfoam it, it even has tabs welded in for firring strips, put a pilot house back on it, build a decent anchor winch, hand rails, trim tab and wind vane and go cruising. The interior is kinda simple and bare anyway. According to the broker the guy who's selling it bought it in victoria sailed it over to Port Townsend with his son, hauled it and put it up for sale. It may just be because there's no pilot house, I didn't measure but it looks like the mast is further forward than it is on mine, is this something that's done with single keelers Brent? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > They cut the wheelhouse off in the bare primer stage. It was similar to wheelhouses I put on most of my 36 footers today. I don't have any photos. > The reason I don't like to make the transition from steel to aluminium at the deck edge, is because the hull deck joint takes the entire twisting load of the hull. That is why they had so many problems there on fibreglass hulls. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > Brent: > > Is there a photo of a boat with the wheelhouse?? > > > > Regarding hull joints--When I worked at one custom yacht company the fiberglass hulls had a flange facing inward on which strips of grey butyl (the window stuff in paper covered roll) was placed on the flange and then a ribbed vinly piece which I think had something to do with swimming pool joints and then more butyl on top of that. An L shaped proprietary aluminum piece with flathead bolt holes alread machined in it about 4" centres was then bolted (1/4" can't remember if lock nuts but washers definitely). The butyl squeezed out the sides which you want to avoid by placing it a bit back of the edge since it was a pain to clean. It took 2 of us about a day. Maybe this would work with an aluminum deck with some excellent goop under the bolt heads to stop electrolosis?? The joint was finished with something?? > > > > MarkH > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 24188|23988|2010-10-09 18:47:51|Gary H. Lucas|Re: sunk boats|I always see people saying that foam can absorb water. But here is an interesting thing. My Etap 26 has foam filled rudder. The rudder was split open at the trailing edge from ice damage, because it sat on a mooring 24/7/365 for 25 years. I opened up the rudder to repair electrolytic damage to the aluminum shaft (caused by copper bottom paint). I dug out all the foam and it was completely dry, it hadn't absorbed any appreciable amount of water at all. So I would guess that the type of foam used may make a difference. Gary H. Lucas From: wild_explorer Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 9:45 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: sunk boats Does anybody know how much 15 cub.m of foaming cost? For 40 footer we can take 12.5 cub.m displacement as an example. To be on the safe side, let say 15 cub.m. If hull's area is 100 sq.m, it will be about 150mm (~6 in) for foam thickness. Looks reasonable for 40 footer... Some not very usable areas could take more than 6 inches of foam. All others approaches for boat safety is good as always, just want to know the cost of this option... Another question. Does foam really absorbs water? I thought it has closed cells. Any comments on this one? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > if only 3in. of foam can make it unsinkable it is surprising to see that nobody does it? > > 3 inches of foam is not cheap. Foam is not that attractive and demands to be covered, at least in some people's minds -- I think Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24189|24156|2010-10-09 19:13:20|brentswain38|Re: sunk boats--wheel house and hull joints|The mast is in the same place as yours, Haidan, 14 feet from the stem. A pilot house could be built , detailed , painted and foamed, ashore, in a small shop or garage, then the hole cut out, and the wheelhouse house welded down in a single sunny day. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > someone asked me to have a look at that single keeler in Port Townsend, got the broker to let me poke around, > It's not sprayfoamed it's laid in panels covered by 1/4" ply. Not done particularly well either there are gaps between the various panels doesn't look like there was any attempt to seal them and make a decent vapor barrier, which I would think is as important as the foam itself, if you're going to insulated it that way. But the hull looks in great shape from the small areas I could look at, small spots here and there in the bilge with rust and some weeping rusty lines, tiny little, looked like a tiny under sized hurth tranny, nice big Mercedes conversion engine. > I would say this is a boat that someone built to use on the weekends and keep at the dock, no long distance cruising/livaboard in mind but for 29k it's a great hull and decent rig one could tear out the interior touch up a couple spots and sprayfoam it, it even has tabs welded in for firring strips, put a pilot house back on it, build a decent anchor winch, hand rails, trim tab and wind vane and go cruising. The interior is kinda simple and bare anyway. > According to the broker the guy who's selling it bought it in victoria sailed it over to Port Townsend with his son, hauled it and put it up for sale. > It may just be because there's no pilot house, I didn't measure but it looks like the mast is further forward than it is on mine, is this something that's done with single keelers Brent? > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > They cut the wheelhouse off in the bare primer stage. It was similar to wheelhouses I put on most of my 36 footers today. I don't have any photos. > > The reason I don't like to make the transition from steel to aluminium at the deck edge, is because the hull deck joint takes the entire twisting load of the hull. That is why they had so many problems there on fibreglass hulls. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > > > Brent: > > > Is there a photo of a boat with the wheelhouse?? > > > > > > Regarding hull joints--When I worked at one custom yacht company the fiberglass hulls had a flange facing inward on which strips of grey butyl (the window stuff in paper covered roll) was placed on the flange and then a ribbed vinly piece which I think had something to do with swimming pool joints and then more butyl on top of that. An L shaped proprietary aluminum piece with flathead bolt holes alread machined in it about 4" centres was then bolted (1/4" can't remember if lock nuts but washers definitely). The butyl squeezed out the sides which you want to avoid by placing it a bit back of the edge since it was a pain to clean. It took 2 of us about a day. Maybe this would work with an aluminum deck with some excellent goop under the bolt heads to stop electrolosis?? The joint was finished with something?? > > > > > > MarkH > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > | 24190|23988|2010-10-09 19:19:17|brentswain38|Re: sunk boats|Given these hulls have often hit sharp corners at hull speed, without even denting , the odds of ever depending on floatation is extremely minimal. The only reason the 40 was holed was because she was doing close to 15 knots, with the help of a big tidal current, and because she wasn't built to the plans. However, 3 inch foam could be trimmed near corners, like the edge of the floor space, etc, without losing significant floatation. . . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > On a small boat, 3 inches of foam will make the interior a lot > smaller than you think. For instance, 3 inches of foam would make the > floor area much smaller and it would be much harder to walk around. > If the hull is steel and you have good strong hatches and through hulls, > it is hard for me to think of a situation where it would fill with > water. A bad or siphoning hose on a through hull is probably most > likely but if you are on board this can be stopped. If you are away, > you can close your through hulls before you leave if you are really > worried about it. > > Cheers, Paul > > On 10/9/2010 10:15 AM, martin demers wrote: > > if only 3in. of foam can make it unsinkable it is surprising to see that nobody does it? > > > > > | 24191|23988|2010-10-09 19:30:26|brentswain38|Re: sunk boats|Foam flotation is not that important. However condensation and living in an uninsulated boat in northern winters, when it rains harder inside than outside, and the hull is lines with a half inch of ice for weeks on end, makes life far more complicate than any foam ever could. I was once foolish enough to try it, in my youth, an experience I would never advocate anyone repeating. I have yet to encounter a simpler way of making a steel boat liveable in winter, than spray foam. I've tried other alternatives , all have been dismal failures. Ditto uninsulated fibreglass boats. I recently talked to a friend who used a kit from foamit green ( do a search under that name) and said he found it extremely easy to use. It comes with a propane like bottle of nitrous oxide as the pressure source, and sprays on just like any other spray foam , for half the price of hiring a foamer to do it. The only gassing is nitrous Oxide ( LOL.) That could make it a "fun job." --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > if only 3in. of foam can make it unsinkable it is surprising to see that nobody does it? > > 3 inches of foam is not cheap. Foam is not that attractive and demands to be covered, at least in some people's minds -- I think there is one person like this for every boat. Foam is easily damaged and worn. If this is a problem, like in the floors of lockers, then another layer of material must be added in addition to the foam. It is more work and complication. Foaming is just one more thing that gets in the way when one has still not gotten the plumbing and electrical to their 100% final state -- it is too easy and too inviting to go sailing before all work is 100% done. > > Finally, and rightfully so, most people do not go that far or that unfamiliar, either to them or many other cruisers, and with the toughness of a steel boat and the unlikely outcome of a puncture, foaming is not a high priority on the list of things to do. Lots of cheap fibreglass boats around them had not sunk, and the steel boat is typically far more secure. > > It is easy not to get around to installing something that would get in my way a lot and seem to lead to a lot more work. > > Some might be inclined to foam. I am more inclined to install bulkheads with doors. The interior volume of a boat is huge. Just two bulkheads to divide up the volume and it would be really hard to sink. Three and it would be next to impossible, but then you need a bulkhead through the middle of the main volume of the boat. Foam also guarantees that all of the boat gets completely wet up to the coach roof. Bulkheads mean, one or two sections get wet. Something is almost certain to stay completely dry. Doors only have to be water tight enough that you can stay ahead of it by pumping. If the door starts 2 feet up from the floor level, this significantly lowers the force on the door and the design demands and potential leakage. > > Matt > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24192|23988|2010-10-09 19:33:54|brentswain38|Re: sunk boats|A good offshore cruising boat is a"Workboat" and is built with "workboat" priorities. The more experience a cruiser has, the more he is inclined to workboat priorities, and the less he is inclined to "Yachtyness.". --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 05:15:03PM -0400, martin demers wrote: > > > > if only 3in. of foam can make it unsinkable it is surprising to see that nobody does it? > > Long-distance cruising sailors, and our kind of thinking, are not the > mainstream part of the market; most of what's sold in "yachty" stores > and dealerships isn't intended for us. The default set of features in > boats today is intended for a certain kind of sailor; if you're never > going to sail off-shore, then things like built-in flotation are just a > "waste of space" which can be used to store important things like > cocktail napkins and swizzle sticks. > > Heck, at that point, there's nothing wrong with a 1/8"-thick fiberglass > hull, either: it keeps out the water _and_ looks pretty and shiny. Why > would you ever want anything else? :) > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > | 24193|23988|2010-10-09 19:37:19|brentswain38|Re: Boat Flotation|I was talking about filing voids, which are inaccessible for storage, and thus adding a bit more to the total floatation, where possible, or practical. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Matt, > my boat makes 8 tonnes, that would mean 4000 bottles, it seems much more than the 3inches of foam Brent was talking about,what do you think? > Martin. > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: m_j_malone@... > Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 08:20:40 -0400 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Boat Flotation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Idea: PETE bottles, particularly 2 liter pop bottles. Cost per cubic foot = free in small quantities, like wheel weights. One gets more than 2 kg of buoyancy from each one, slightly less if they are packed tightly together and forced into a rectangular cross-section. > > > > That is 500 bottles / tonne of buoyancy. > > > > They do not leak. If one does, you can see water in it, empty it out, and reseal it. > > They are pretty tough. > > They are easily replaced. > > They likely make good insulation if packed properly. > > They give better buoyancy than dense foam. > > One can remove a few to string more wire or plumbing. > > You can easily look behind them for signs of rust and do some painting. > > > > But you are thinking, 3500 bottles takes up a lot of space. Yes, it would. And more than foam because foam sits right against the hull. > > They would remove 8 inches of beam from any area where you put them. > > They will expand and contract with temperature. > > I expect they will make a rustling noise no matter how one mounts them in a non-permanent way. > > > > They are likely nearly as flammable as cheap foam once they get going, if a little less easy to get going. > > > > I am using them under the decks of my 16 foot day sailor to make it unsinkable. > > > > For a big boat, I prefer bulkheads with sealable doors. > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24194|23988|2010-10-09 19:45:43|brentswain38|Re: sunk boats|There is a huge difference between the absorbtion rates of different types of foam . I once had to wait month for water to drain out of the poured in place urethane foam in a fibreglass boat, before being able to start fibreglass repairs. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > I always see people saying that foam can absorb water. But here is an interesting thing. My Etap 26 has foam filled rudder. The rudder was split open at the trailing edge from ice damage, because it sat on a mooring 24/7/365 for 25 years. I opened up the rudder to repair electrolytic damage to the aluminum shaft (caused by copper bottom paint). I dug out all the foam and it was completely dry, it hadn't absorbed any appreciable amount of water at all. So I would guess that the type of foam used may make a difference. > > Gary H. Lucas > > > From: wild_explorer > Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 9:45 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: sunk boats > > > > Does anybody know how much 15 cub.m of foaming cost? > > For 40 footer we can take 12.5 cub.m displacement as an example. To be on the safe side, let say 15 cub.m. If hull's area is 100 sq.m, it will be about 150mm (~6 in) for foam thickness. Looks reasonable for 40 footer... Some not very usable areas could take more than 6 inches of foam. > > All others approaches for boat safety is good as always, just want to know the cost of this option... > > Another question. Does foam really absorbs water? I thought it has closed cells. Any comments on this one? > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > if only 3in. of foam can make it unsinkable it is surprising to see that nobody does it? > > > > 3 inches of foam is not cheap. Foam is not that attractive and demands to be covered, at least in some people's minds -- I think > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24195|23988|2010-10-09 19:56:24|brentswain38|Re: For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic|Many of those older classics had a short keel with the rudder attached. This led to an abysmal lack of control downwind in rough conditions, ( as I learned the hard way on my first boat) This can be drastically improved by removing the rudder from the keel and replacing it with a rudder on a skeg, with a vertical rudder post, at the aft end of the waterline, or further back. I did that, and the improvement in downwind control was huge. I once suggested this to a friend, who had completed a circumnavigation on an Alberg 37. He said things got scary on that boat while running downwind in rough weather. Instead of the skeg mounted rudder , he put a daggerboard trunk and daggerboard in behind the keel hung rudder . He said he wished he had done that before his circumnavigation, as the improvement was huge. He also said he wished he had gone the aft rudder route. If you go for a steel skeg , it can be used as a keel cooler. The change in balance going to windward was minimal. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > The boat I bought is a Rhodes Bounty II 41: > > > > > http://astro.temple.edu/~bstavis/pr/bountyII.htm > > > > > When Grumman bought out the manufacturer, Coleman/Aeromarine, and also bought > Pearson, the moulds were transferred to Pearson and the next year > Pearson started building the Pearson Rhodes 41 > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: mdemers2005@... > > > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:48:01 -0400 > > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic > > > > > > > > > Matt, > > > what model of boat is yours? > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24196|23988|2010-10-09 21:47:29|Matt Malone|Re: For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic|Absolutely Brent. I am looking at the options, including a cooler in the skeg (listening to all the posts here). I would leave the rudder on the keel though, and add a second rudder on the transom, and have a self-steering gear on that one. The keel rudder would be tied off most of the time, but a rudder is something I would prefer to add, rather than replace, so that any one of a number of single failures do not leave the boat rudderless. This Bounty II: http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f47/bounty-ii-refit-and-circumnavigation-14711.html Was abandoned on its way to Hawaii because it lost control of its rudder in an extended hurricane. After a collision with the freighter that rescued the owner, it was last seen still floating, so a cautionary tale. The keel rudder however will have more positive directional control in docking operations when the wash of the propeller right on it will be useful. Going downwind is always the most unstable point of sail, and every little bit helps. Matt -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 23:56:14 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic Many of those older classics had a short keel with the rudder attached. This led to an abysmal lack of control downwind in rough conditions, ( as I learned the hard way on my first boat) This can be drastically improved by removing the rudder from the keel and replacing it with a rudder on a skeg, with a vertical rudder post, at the aft end of the waterline, or further back. I did that, and the improvement in downwind control was huge. I once suggested this to a friend, who had completed a circumnavigation on an Alberg 37. He said things got scary on that boat while running downwind in rough weather. Instead of the skeg mounted rudder , he put a daggerboard trunk and daggerboard in behind the keel hung rudder . He said he wished he had done that before his circumnavigation, as the improvement was huge. He also said he wished he had gone the aft rudder route. If you go for a steel skeg , it can be used as a keel cooler. The change in balance going to windward was minimal. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > The boat I bought is a Rhodes Bounty II 41: > > > > > http://astro.temple.edu/~bstavis/pr/bountyII.htm > > > > > When Grumman bought out the manufacturer, Coleman/Aeromarine, and also bought > Pearson, the moulds were transferred to Pearson and the next year > Pearson started building the Pearson Rhodes 41 > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: mdemers2005@... > > > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:48:01 -0400 > > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic > > > > > > > > > Matt, > > > what model of boat is yours? > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24197|23988|2010-10-09 22:30:10|Ben Okopnik|Re: sunk boats|On Sat, Oct 09, 2010 at 11:33:53PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > A good offshore cruising boat is a"Workboat" and is built with > "workboat" priorities. The more experience a cruiser has, the more he > is inclined to workboat priorities, and the less he is inclined to > "Yachtyness.". [laugh] I've never quite connected those two things; thanks, Brent. Everyone's always commented about my boat being much more like a workboat than a yacht, and I've always considered that a compliment. I've also always enjoyed going aboard tugs and fishing boats and looking at how they put things together. On the other hand, looking at those things always leaves me desperately envious and wanting a 50-plus-foot boat; some of the equipment those guys have doesn't scale down very well. Man, if I ever win the lottery... a 55' Brentboat would suit me to a tee. :) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24198|23988|2010-10-10 00:41:34|wild_explorer|Flotation foam (Re: sunk boats)|This information from one of the forums (when I was researching this subject couples of last days)I found interesting: Question: I have been told sometime in the past that the foam installed between the hull and the floor of the boat on these older boats tends to act like a sponge and soaks up a lot of water over time and adds much weight to the boat. One of the Answers: In fact I am currently working on a research project for the Coast Guard to find out why because it ain't supposed to happen! ...skip.. That said, this problem did not occur much on boats built before 1995. In 1995 the EPA changed the rules for how foam is made, and the Coast Guard started see a lot of water soaked foam. Prior to that it onlly seemed to happen if the manufacturer didn't mix the foam correctly. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > I always see people saying that foam can absorb water. But here is an interesting thing. My Etap 26 has foam filled rudder. The rudder was split open at the trailing edge from ice damage, because it sat on a mooring 24/7/365 for 25 years. I opened up the rudder to repair electrolytic damage to the aluminum shaft (caused by copper bottom paint). I dug out all the foam and it was completely dry, it hadn't absorbed any appreciable amount of water at all. So I would guess that the type of foam used may make a difference. > > Gary H. Lucas | 24199|24199|2010-10-10 00:42:43|kingsknight4life|Prairie Maid Too|Hi all There are now TWO BS 36's in the Edmonton area. Martin's (and Betty's) Prairie Maid and our yet to be named hull. Just the other day a guy from work and I took his Dodge 5500 and hauled my "boat" from Courtenay to Edmonton. We left on a Tuesday at 2pm and arrived back on Thursday at 2 pm. Not bad for a 1400 km trip, including ferry crossings and a 6 hr. delay when the crane I had hired broke while we were en route. Some useful info for further reference; The boat scaled out on the picker truck at 15000 lbs (It's 95% detailed) It's height off the truck deck is approx. 11'7". We were under 4.55m overall. You can pull a "Brent boat" with a goose neck trailer, with 2 - 12000lb axles, even through the mountains. They will just barely fit on a ferry.:) You get lots of questions in BC and tons of strange looks in AB heading into the mountains towards the prairies. :) I'm stoked, now I can work on her in my spare time as completing it via long distance was not a feasible alternative. Rowland| 24200|23988|2010-10-10 01:07:39|wild_explorer|Re: sunk boats|Matt, Was the foam in this test sealed with some paint? Did you do the test how much time does it take for a foam to be saturated by water? Probably will depend on a brand and type of foam. The reason I ask: - Usually foam is painted over. - If boat takes a water, foam stay in the water limited amount of time. Probably no more than 24 hours (if possible to make repair and pump water out). - more likely, modern foam will not absorb water from air. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > It depends entirely on the foam, but yes, foam can double its weight > overnight in water and it never dries out properly afterward. Based on > laboratory testing I did. I would like to try the Tiger Foam to see about it. It looks awefully handy > > > http://www.tigerfoam.ca/foamkit.php | 24201|23988|2010-10-10 14:07:47|John Fisher|Re: Flotation foam (Re: sunk boats)|That change was the montreal protocol. It outlawed CFC blown foams. Now all foams are blown with co2. The co2 foams do not skin as well as the CFC foams. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 9, 2010, at 10:41 PM, "wild_explorer" wrote: > This information from one of the forums (when I was researching this subject couples of last days)I found interesting: > > Question: > > I have been told sometime in the past that the > foam installed between the hull and the floor of the boat on these older boats tends to act like a > sponge and soaks up a lot of water over time and adds much weight to the boat. > > One of the Answers: > > In fact I am currently working on a research project for the Coast > Guard to find out why because it ain't supposed to happen! > > ...skip.. > > That said, this problem did not occur much on boats built before 1995. In 1995 the EPA changed the > rules for how foam is made, and the Coast Guard started see a lot of water soaked foam. Prior to that > it onlly seemed to happen if the manufacturer didn't mix the foam correctly. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > > > > > I always see people saying that foam can absorb water. But here is an interesting thing. My Etap 26 has foam filled rudder. The rudder was split open at the trailing edge from ice damage, because it sat on a mooring 24/7/365 for 25 years. I opened up the rudder to repair electrolytic damage to the aluminum shaft (caused by copper bottom paint). I dug out all the foam and it was completely dry, it hadn't absorbed any appreciable amount of water at all. So I would guess that the type of foam used may make a difference. > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24202|23988|2010-10-10 15:57:51|Matt Malone|Re: sunk boats|>Matt, > >Was the foam in this test sealed with some paint? > >Did you do the test how much time does it take for a foam to be saturated by water? Probably will depend on a brand and type of foam. > >The reason I ask: >- Usually foam is painted over. >- If boat takes a water, foam stay in the water limited amount of time. Probably no more than >24 hours (if possible to make repair and pump water out). >- more likely, modern foam will not absorb water from air. Wild, The foam was not painted. It was in the water 24 hours. It was weighed before and after with a precision scale. The foam was a 3.5 x 4.5 x 5 inches. Water was in contact with all sides of the foam. The 16' day sailer I was putting PETE bottles in -- it used to use foam. Some of the foam I pulled out was as heavy as a waterlogged piece of wood. It is clear to me that foam keeps absorbing water the longer it is in the water. The water-logged foam -- I set it up on edge and left it in a dry place... It was still as heavy a week later. The reason for this is, I suspect, the same as when you open your dish washer -- all the plastic beads the water, and water does not really dry off of it. The glasses, ceramic mugs and corelle plates are wet, yes, but the water does not bead, it spreads out and drys more quickly. 15 minutes later, all the ceramics are dry, and the plastics are still wet. I suspect the outside millimeter or two of foam will dry reasonably quickly, but the rest will hold the water in "beads". The water will not migrate to the outside, to dry faster. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24203|24203|2010-10-11 11:21:57|jonmartins1|Water Generator|Has anybody tried to build one using a garbage disposal motor?? The ones in our kitchen sinks?? I've seen a few specs on some of them and they seem to have permanent mag in order to have a high torque on start up and bla bla bla... They say most 1/2HP motors run at around 1500 RPMS... so if you get a 110v unit, you'd be generating 12v right around 150rpms... or even 75rpms with a 220v one... not forgetting the diode to filter it to DC in the end. I only know enough to be dangerous with all this electro-electronic babble, and am struggling to find a cheap one motor here in NZ to build one... Cheers Jon| 24204|24203|2010-10-11 14:19:40|Paul Wilson|Re: Water Generator|Have you checked out Eco Innovation? They have won awards making generators out of old washing machine motors. http://www.ecoinnovation.co.nz/c-58-smart-drives.aspx Cheers, Paul On 10/12/2010 3:36 AM, jonmartins1 wrote: > > Has anybody tried to build one using a garbage disposal motor?? The > ones in our kitchen sinks?? > > I've seen a few specs on some of them and they seem to have permanent > mag in order to have a high torque on start up and bla bla bla... > > They say most 1/2HP motors run at around 1500 RPMS... so if you get a > 110v unit, you'd be generating 12v right around 150rpms... or even > 75rpms with a 220v one... not forgetting the diode to filter it to DC > in the end. > > I only know enough to be dangerous with all this electro-electronic > babble, and am struggling to find a cheap one motor here in NZ to > build one... > > Cheers > > Jon > > | 24205|23988|2010-10-12 08:57:22|wild_explorer|Foam (Re: sunk boats)|Does surfaced of poured foam look different than after trimming? Is it necessary to trim foam? If it is, would it be a good idea to pain foam for extra protection from fire and water? I used only household type of foam (in small hand-held can). For home repairs. Surface of the foam after expanding was sealed (looks like lava stone surface - hard and slick). After cutting the foam, pores were visible. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > well for my 100+ cu.ft, took away three garbage bags of foam after carving probably 3 cu.ft each. And I have more than 1 1/2 inches of foam in places so maybe 120 or 130 cu.ft in total for 1600 CAD > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > Does anybody know how much 15 cub.m of foaming cost? > > | 24206|23988|2010-10-12 13:38:35|h|Re: sunk boats|That's true other than the drill press, more come a longs, cutting torch, and a couple other essentials that were needed to build this boat (on the list) it's all on board cause I know at some point I'm going to need them. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > A good offshore cruising boat is a"Workboat" and is built with "workboat" priorities. The more experience a cruiser has, the more he is inclined to workboat priorities, and the less he is inclined to "Yachtyness.". > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 05:15:03PM -0400, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > if only 3in. of foam can make it unsinkable it is surprising to see that nobody does it? > > > > Long-distance cruising sailors, and our kind of thinking, are not the > > mainstream part of the market; most of what's sold in "yachty" stores > > and dealerships isn't intended for us. The default set of features in > > boats today is intended for a certain kind of sailor; if you're never > > going to sail off-shore, then things like built-in flotation are just a > > "waste of space" which can be used to store important things like > > cocktail napkins and swizzle sticks. > > > > Heck, at that point, there's nothing wrong with a 1/8"-thick fiberglass > > hull, either: it keeps out the water _and_ looks pretty and shiny. Why > > would you ever want anything else? :) > > > > > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > | 24207|23988|2010-10-12 13:47:35|h|Re: sunk boats|> On the other hand, looking at those things always leaves me desperately > envious and wanting a 50-plus-foot boat; some of the equipment those > guys have doesn't scale down very well. Man, if I ever win the > lottery... a 55' Brentboat would suit me to a tee. :) something you could fit that metal lathe in| 24208|23988|2010-10-12 15:08:06|brentswain38|Re: For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic|I once met a Frenchman, named Andre who had a couple of dagger boards either side of his rudder, angled out at about 20 degrees. He said, with the dagger boards down ,it was impossible to broach, or to get her to sail anywhere but dead downwind, until you begin to raise the dagger boards. Wish I had done that on my last boat . I had considered doing it. It would have been so simple to do. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Absolutely Brent. I am looking at the options, including a cooler in the skeg (listening to all the posts here). I would leave the rudder on the keel though, and add a second rudder on the transom, and have a self-steering gear on that one. The keel rudder would be tied off most of the time, but a rudder is something I would prefer to add, rather than replace, so that any one of a number of single failures do not leave the boat rudderless. This Bounty II: > > http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f47/bounty-ii-refit-and-circumnavigation-14711.html > > Was abandoned on its way to Hawaii because it lost control of its rudder in an extended hurricane. After a collision with the freighter that rescued the owner, it was last seen still floating, so a cautionary tale. > > The keel rudder however will have more positive directional control in docking operations when the wash of the propeller right on it will be useful. > > Going downwind is always the most unstable point of sail, and every little bit helps. > > Matt > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 23:56:14 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Many of those older classics had a short keel with the rudder > attached. This led to an abysmal lack of control downwind in rough > conditions, ( as I learned the hard way on my first boat) > > This can be drastically improved by removing the rudder from the keel > and replacing it with a rudder on a skeg, with a vertical rudder post, > at the aft end of the waterline, or further back. I did that, and the > improvement in downwind control was huge. > > I once suggested this to a friend, who had completed a circumnavigation > on an Alberg 37. He said things got scary on that boat while running > downwind in rough weather. Instead of the skeg mounted rudder , he put a > daggerboard trunk and daggerboard in behind the keel hung rudder . He > said he wished he had done that before his circumnavigation, as the > improvement was huge. He also said he wished he had gone the aft rudder > route. If you go for a steel skeg , it can be used as a keel cooler. > > The change in balance going to windward was minimal. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The boat I bought is a Rhodes Bounty II 41: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://astro.temple.edu/~bstavis/pr/bountyII.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When Grumman bought out the manufacturer, Coleman/Aeromarine, and also bought > > > Pearson, the moulds were transferred to Pearson and the next year > > > Pearson started building the Pearson Rhodes 41 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > From: mdemers2005@ > > > > > > > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:48:01 -0400 > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, > > > > > > > what model of boat is yours? > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24209|24199|2010-10-12 15:15:23|brentswain38|Re: Prairie Maid Too|Congratulations Rowland. You should be able to make a lot of progress on her now. If you can get spray foamed before winter, you can get a lot of interior done during the winter, with a baseboard heater or two running. Even if you only get the inside blasted, painted and foamed , you can do the outside in spring. You only need to finish the detail where there is foam opposite it, the rest you can do in the spring. Maybe we'll see you sailing next summer/. I was beginning to wonder what you were up to. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "kingsknight4life" wrote: > > Hi all > There are now TWO BS 36's in the Edmonton area. Martin's (and Betty's) Prairie Maid and our yet to be named hull. Just the other day a guy from work and I took his Dodge 5500 and hauled my "boat" from Courtenay to Edmonton. We left on a Tuesday at 2pm and arrived back on Thursday at 2 pm. Not bad for a 1400 km trip, including ferry crossings and a 6 hr. delay when the crane I had hired broke while we were en route. > > Some useful info for further reference; > The boat scaled out on the picker truck at 15000 lbs > (It's 95% detailed) > It's height off the truck deck is approx. 11'7". We were under 4.55m overall. > You can pull a "Brent boat" with a goose neck trailer, with 2 - 12000lb axles, even through the mountains. > They will just barely fit on a ferry.:) > You get lots of questions in BC and tons of strange looks in AB heading into the mountains towards the prairies. :) > > I'm stoked, now I can work on her in my spare time as completing it via long distance was not a feasible alternative. > > Rowland > | 24210|23988|2010-10-12 15:21:02|brentswain38|Re: sunk boats|The waterlogged foam in the power boat I worked on,which took a month to drain, was back in 1979. Most plastics, including many paints, absorb water and swell like wood , just not as far. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > >Matt, > > > > > >Was the foam in this test sealed with some paint? > > > > > >Did you do the test how much time does it take for a foam to be > saturated by water? Probably will depend on a brand and type of foam. > > > > > >The reason I ask: > > >- Usually foam is painted over. > > >- If boat takes a water, foam stay in the water limited amount of time. > Probably no more than > >24 hours (if possible to make repair and pump > water out). > > >- more likely, modern foam will not absorb water from air. > > > Wild, > > The foam was not painted. It was in the water 24 hours. It was weighed before and after with a precision scale. The foam was a 3.5 x 4.5 x 5 inches. Water was in contact with all sides of the foam. > > The 16' day sailer I was putting PETE bottles in -- it used to use foam. Some of the foam I pulled out was as heavy as a waterlogged piece of wood. It is clear to me that foam keeps absorbing water the longer it is in the water. The water-logged foam -- I set it up on edge and left it in a dry place... It was still as heavy a week later. > > The reason for this is, I suspect, the same as when you open your dish washer -- all the plastic beads the water, and water does not really dry off of it. The glasses, ceramic mugs and corelle plates are wet, yes, but the water does not bead, it spreads out and drys more quickly. 15 minutes later, all the ceramics are dry, and the plastics are still wet. > > I suspect the outside millimeter or two of foam will dry reasonably quickly, but the rest will hold the water in "beads". The water will not migrate to the outside, to dry faster. > > Matt > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24211|23988|2010-10-12 15:25:49|brentswain38|Foam (Re: sunk boats)|Spray can foam is far more porous than spray foam. Painting it with cheap latex paint from the recyclers drastically improves it's fire resistance. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Does surfaced of poured foam look different than after trimming? > > Is it necessary to trim foam? If it is, would it be a good idea to pain foam for extra protection from fire and water? > > I used only household type of foam (in small hand-held can). For home repairs. Surface of the foam after expanding was sealed (looks like lava stone surface - hard and slick). After cutting the foam, pores were visible. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > > > well for my 100+ cu.ft, took away three garbage bags of foam after carving probably 3 cu.ft each. And I have more than 1 1/2 inches of foam in places so maybe 120 or 130 cu.ft in total for 1600 CAD > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > Does anybody know how much 15 cub.m of foaming cost? > > > > | 24212|23988|2010-10-12 15:33:37|brentswain38|Re: sunk boats|For a drill press , a 2X4 for leverage across the back of your drill, tied under a piece of line , tied to a cleat, does almost the same job. A 100amp alternator from the auto wreckers , will run your power tools, charge your batteries, and weld . It's no bigger than a six pack of beer, actually smaller. With it, I can fabricate almost anything in my cockpit , just built an anchor winch yesterday. Winches and blocks can act as come alongs. I made a yoke for filling a small oxygen bottles from a bigger bottle. Saves one from having to deal with contracts, etc. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > That's true other than the drill press, more come a longs, cutting torch, and a couple other essentials that were needed to build this boat (on the list) it's all on board cause I know at some point I'm going to need them. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > A good offshore cruising boat is a"Workboat" and is built with "workboat" priorities. The more experience a cruiser has, the more he is inclined to workboat priorities, and the less he is inclined to "Yachtyness.". > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 05:15:03PM -0400, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > if only 3in. of foam can make it unsinkable it is surprising to see that nobody does it? > > > > > > Long-distance cruising sailors, and our kind of thinking, are not the > > > mainstream part of the market; most of what's sold in "yachty" stores > > > and dealerships isn't intended for us. The default set of features in > > > boats today is intended for a certain kind of sailor; if you're never > > > going to sail off-shore, then things like built-in flotation are just a > > > "waste of space" which can be used to store important things like > > > cocktail napkins and swizzle sticks. > > > > > > Heck, at that point, there's nothing wrong with a 1/8"-thick fiberglass > > > hull, either: it keeps out the water _and_ looks pretty and shiny. Why > > > would you ever want anything else? :) > > > > > > > > > -- > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > | 24213|23988|2010-10-12 15:35:50|brentswain38|Re: sunk boats|You can do a lot of machining with any power tool that makes things go around . I've used a couple of angle grinders for that, as well as drills, etc. All it takes is imagination and innovation. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > > > On the other hand, looking at those things always leaves me desperately > > envious and wanting a 50-plus-foot boat; some of the equipment those > > guys have doesn't scale down very well. Man, if I ever win the > > lottery... a 55' Brentboat would suit me to a tee. :) > > something you could fit that metal lathe in > | 24214|23988|2010-10-12 16:20:26|Aaron Williams|Dagger Boards|Any design idea that you would care to share about the dagger boards. How to hang them, how close to the rudder, Length, depth and material ? I am still in the stage I may be willing to give something like that a try. My first thought was of matching the angle of the keels. Aaron ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, October 12, 2010 11:07:57 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic   I once met a Frenchman, named Andre who had a couple of dagger boards either side of his rudder, angled out at about 20 degrees. He said, with the dagger boards down ,it was impossible to broach, or to get her to sail anywhere but dead downwind, until you begin to raise the dagger boards. Wish I had done that on my last boat . I had considered doing it. It would have been so simple to do. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Absolutely Brent. I am looking at the options, including a cooler in the skeg >(listening to all the posts here). I would leave the rudder on the keel though, >and add a second rudder on the transom, and have a self-steering gear on that >one. The keel rudder would be tied off most of the time, but a rudder is >something I would prefer to add, rather than replace, so that any one of a >number of single failures do not leave the boat rudderless. This Bounty II: > >http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f47/bounty-ii-refit-and-circumnavigation-14711.html >l > > Was abandoned on its way to Hawaii because it lost control of its rudder in an >extended hurricane. After a collision with the freighter that rescued the owner, >it was last seen still floating, so a cautionary tale. > > > The keel rudder however will have more positive directional control in docking >operations when the wash of the propeller right on it will be useful. > > > Going downwind is always the most unstable point of sail, and every little bit >helps. > > > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 23:56:14 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Many of those older classics had a short keel with the rudder > attached. This led to an abysmal lack of control downwind in rough > conditions, ( as I learned the hard way on my first boat) > > This can be drastically improved by removing the rudder from the keel > and replacing it with a rudder on a skeg, with a vertical rudder post, > at the aft end of the waterline, or further back. I did that, and the > improvement in downwind control was huge. > > I once suggested this to a friend, who had completed a circumnavigation > on an Alberg 37. He said things got scary on that boat while running > downwind in rough weather. Instead of the skeg mounted rudder , he put a > daggerboard trunk and daggerboard in behind the keel hung rudder . He > said he wished he had done that before his circumnavigation, as the > improvement was huge. He also said he wished he had gone the aft rudder > route. If you go for a steel skeg , it can be used as a keel cooler. > > The change in balance going to windward was minimal. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The boat I bought is a Rhodes Bounty II 41: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://astro.temple.edu/~bstavis/pr/bountyII.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When Grumman bought out the manufacturer, Coleman/Aeromarine, and also bought > > > Pearson, the moulds were transferred to Pearson and the next year > > > Pearson started building the Pearson Rhodes 41 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > From: mdemers2005@ > > > > > > > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:48:01 -0400 > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] For me it is steel or well-designed classic >plastic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, > > > > > > > what model of boat is yours? > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24215|23988|2010-10-13 11:24:00|h|small oxy propane torch|how'd you do the yoke, I was wondering about that, all solid pipe to take the full pressure? one of these days I'm sure I'll run across a set of regulators and hoses what do you need special for using propane. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > For a drill press , a 2X4 for leverage across the back of your drill, tied under a piece of line , tied to a cleat, does almost the same job. > A 100amp alternator from the auto wreckers , will run your power tools, charge your batteries, and weld . It's no bigger than a six pack of beer, actually smaller. > With it, I can fabricate almost anything in my cockpit , just built an anchor winch yesterday. > Winches and blocks can act as come alongs. > I made a yoke for filling a small oxygen bottles from a bigger bottle. > Saves one from having to deal with contracts, etc. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > > > That's true other than the drill press, more come a longs, cutting torch, and a couple other essentials that were needed to build this boat (on the list) it's all on board cause I know at some point I'm going to need them. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > A good offshore cruising boat is a"Workboat" and is built with "workboat" priorities. The more experience a cruiser has, the more he is inclined to workboat priorities, and the less he is inclined to "Yachtyness.". > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 05:15:03PM -0400, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > if only 3in. of foam can make it unsinkable it is surprising to see that nobody does it? > > > > > > > > Long-distance cruising sailors, and our kind of thinking, are not the > > > > mainstream part of the market; most of what's sold in "yachty" stores > > > > and dealerships isn't intended for us. The default set of features in > > > > boats today is intended for a certain kind of sailor; if you're never > > > > going to sail off-shore, then things like built-in flotation are just a > > > > "waste of space" which can be used to store important things like > > > > cocktail napkins and swizzle sticks. > > > > > > > > Heck, at that point, there's nothing wrong with a 1/8"-thick fiberglass > > > > hull, either: it keeps out the water _and_ looks pretty and shiny. Why > > > > would you ever want anything else? :) > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > > > > | 24216|23988|2010-10-13 11:57:19|Ben Okopnik|Re: small oxy propane torch|On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 03:23:50PM -0000, h wrote: > how'd you do the yoke, I was wondering about that, all solid pipe to > take the full pressure? one of these days I'm sure I'll run across a > set of regulators and hoses what do you need special for using > propane. I'd really like to have an oxy-propane rig myself. What's the best/cheapest way to set one up, especially when it comes to buying/filling the oxy cylinder? Do I need to buy any special fittings, anything different as far the torch goes? I already have the propane on board, and I understand that propane needs a different tip. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24217|23988|2010-10-13 17:40:33|brentswain38|Re: small oxy propane torch|Same torch, same regs, different tip , around $15 You can buy the ends for the filler yoke from any welding supplies. High pressure hydraulic hose connects them. You need some kind of bleed screw to let the pressure off when you have filled a small bottle from a big one. This you can build from a piece of one inch bronze shaft, a reliable overkill. Drill and tap the ends for a 1/4 inch sch 40 pipe tap, which your ends and your hydraulic hose fit. Keep the hole in the bronze shaft between them tiny, about 1/8th inch , drill and tap the hole for the bleed screw 90 degrees to this hole, to meet it, for a 1/4 ss bolt , sharpened to a point, and a tiny hole opposite for the point to go in. Without bleeding off the pressure , you will never get the rig unbolted under pressure. You are dealing with dangerously high pressure . Make sure everything is a gross overkill on strength. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 03:23:50PM -0000, h wrote: > > how'd you do the yoke, I was wondering about that, all solid pipe to > > take the full pressure? one of these days I'm sure I'll run across a > > set of regulators and hoses what do you need special for using > > propane. > > I'd really like to have an oxy-propane rig myself. What's the > best/cheapest way to set one up, especially when it comes to > buying/filling the oxy cylinder? Do I need to buy any special fittings, > anything different as far the torch goes? I already have the propane on > board, and I understand that propane needs a different tip. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > | 24218|23988|2010-10-13 20:10:28|Gary H. Lucas|Re: small oxy propane torch|And one tiny drop of oil left over from the tapping operation splatters body parts all over the space station! Gary H. Lucas From: brentswain38 Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:40 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: small oxy propane torch Same torch, same regs, different tip , around $15 You can buy the ends for the filler yoke from any welding supplies. High pressure hydraulic hose connects them. You need some kind of bleed screw to let the pressure off when you have filled a small bottle from a big one. This you can build from a piece of one inch bronze shaft, a reliable overkill. Drill and tap the ends for a 1/4 inch sch 40 pipe tap, which your ends and your hydraulic hose fit. Keep the hole in the bronze shaft between them tiny, about 1/8th inch , drill and tap the hole for the bleed screw 90 degrees to this hole, to meet it, for a 1/4 ss bolt , sharpened to a point, and a tiny hole opposite for the point to go in. Without bleeding off the pressure , you will never get the rig unbolted under pressure. You are dealing with dangerously high pressure . Make sure everything is a gross overkill on strength. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 03:23:50PM -0000, h wrote: > > how'd you do the yoke, I was wondering about that, all solid pipe to > > take the full pressure? one of these days I'm sure I'll run across a > > set of regulators and hoses what do you need special for using > > propane. > > I'd really like to have an oxy-propane rig myself. What's the > best/cheapest way to set one up, especially when it comes to > buying/filling the oxy cylinder? Do I need to buy any special fittings, > anything different as far the torch goes? I already have the propane on > board, and I understand that propane needs a different tip. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24219|23988|2010-10-13 22:51:58|Matt Malone|Re: small oxy propane torch|This is my favourite video of tank to tank transfers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsm7yQLW3Fo Whatever you think you need oxygen for in second tank, just use a regulator, adapter hose and the first tank, and forget the second tank you where thinking of refilling. Matt >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >From: gary.lucas@... >Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:10:10 -0400 >Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: small oxy propane torch > >And one tiny drop of oil left over from the tapping operation splatters body parts all over the space station! > >Gary H. Lucas > >>From: brentswain38 >>Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:40 PM >>To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >>Subject: [origamiboats] Re: small oxy propane torch >> >>Same torch, same regs, different tip , around $15 >>You can buy the ends for the filler yoke from any welding supplies. High pressure hydraulic hose connects >>them. You need some kind of bleed screw to let the pressure off when you have >>filled a small bottle from a big one. This you can build from a piece of one inch >>bronze shaft, a reliable overkill. Drill and tap the ends for a 1/4 inch sch 40 pipe >>tap, which your ends and your hydraulic hose fit. Keep the hole in the bronze >>shaft between them tiny, about 1/8th inch , drill and tap the hole for the bleed >>screw 90 degrees to this hole, to meet it, for a 1/4 ss bolt , sharpened to a point, >>and a tiny hole opposite for the point to go in. >>Without bleeding off the pressure , you will never get the rig unbolted >>under pressure. >>You are dealing with dangerously high pressure . Make sure everything is a >>gross overkill on strength. >>--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 03:23:50PM -0000, h wrote: >>> > how'd you do the yoke, I was wondering about that, all solid pipe to >>> > take the full pressure? one of these days I'm sure I'll run across a >>> > set of regulators and hoses what do you need special for using >>> > propane. >>> >>> I'd really like to have an oxy-propane rig myself. What's the >>> best/cheapest way to set one up, especially when it comes to >>> buying/filling the oxy cylinder? Do I need to buy any special fittings, >>> anything different as far the torch goes? I already have the propane on >>> board, and I understand that propane needs a different tip. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> OKOPNIK CONSULTING >>> Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business >>> Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming >>> 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24220|23988|2010-10-13 22:58:03|Ben Okopnik|Re: small oxy propane torch|On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 08:10:10PM -0400, Gary H. Lucas wrote: > And one tiny drop of oil left over from the tapping operation > splatters body parts all over the space station! Good point; you'd definitely want to clean every last trace of oil off that rig. I recall seeing a video when I was in welding school in which high-pressure oxy came in contact with oil; impressive enough that I still recall it now, several years down the road. The guy in the video was lucky... if the BOOM had happened a second earlier, it would have taken a whole lot of band-aids to put him back together. I wasn't able to find the one I recall, but here's a "fun" video about the power of compressed oxy (includes impressive blood splatters): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lw_fhNAIQc -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24221|24221|2010-10-14 12:36:08|wild_explorer|Hydrogen welding|Ben, You are good in research. It is relatively easy to make hydrogen generator if you have source of fresh water and electricity (wind/hydro, solar)on a boat. There are 2 options I know: "hydroxy gas" (H2 + 0) and Atomic Hydrogen Welding (AHW). "Hydroxy gas" could be very dangerous, I do not know about AHW. Some link for the start on AHW: http://www.specialwelds.com/underwater-welding/atomic-hydrogen-welding.htm What do you think about it (from practical point of view)?| 24222|23988|2010-10-14 14:09:49|brentswain38|Re: small oxy propane torch|Yes ,boil the shit out of any parts, before assembling them. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > And one tiny drop of oil left over from the tapping operation splatters body parts all over the space station! > > Gary H. Lucas > > > From: brentswain38 > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:40 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: small oxy propane torch > > > > Same torch, same regs, different tip , around $15 > You can buy the ends for the filler yoke from any welding supplies. High pressure hydraulic hose connects them. You need some kind of bleed screw to let the pressure off when you have filled a small bottle from a big one. This you can build from a piece of one inch bronze shaft, a reliable overkill. Drill and tap the ends for a 1/4 inch sch 40 pipe tap, which your ends and your hydraulic hose fit. Keep the hole in the bronze shaft between them tiny, about 1/8th inch , drill and tap the hole for the bleed screw 90 degrees to this hole, to meet it, for a 1/4 ss bolt , sharpened to a point, and a tiny hole opposite for the point to go in. > Without bleeding off the pressure , you will never get the rig unbolted under pressure. > You are dealing with dangerously high pressure . Make sure everything is a gross overkill on strength. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 03:23:50PM -0000, h wrote: > > > how'd you do the yoke, I was wondering about that, all solid pipe to > > > take the full pressure? one of these days I'm sure I'll run across a > > > set of regulators and hoses what do you need special for using > > > propane. > > > > I'd really like to have an oxy-propane rig myself. What's the > > best/cheapest way to set one up, especially when it comes to > > buying/filling the oxy cylinder? Do I need to buy any special fittings, > > anything different as far the torch goes? I already have the propane on > > board, and I understand that propane needs a different tip. > > > > > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24223|23988|2010-10-14 14:22:17|brentswain38|Re: Dagger Boards|Tried to post this yesterday but computer time ran out. The trick about putting dagger board trunks in the well rounded and under tension parts of the stern, is doing it without distortion, when you cut the holes out. I'd tack in temporary 2x2x1/4 angles or larger , about four feet long, longitudinally, about three inches outside the holes on the outside of the hull, to stop it from springing. I'd also put a lot of gussets from the trunk to the hull plate before cutting anything out. I thought about using those 12 inch diameter by 1/8th inch wall stainless tubings you find in scrap yards dealing with pulp mills, for the trunks. I'd put a 2x12 inside and drive something over them, to squash them into the shape of trunks. I'd put them on or above the waterline about 18 inches to two feet out from the rudder, angled out the same angles as the keels, about 25 degrees. On or above the waterline eliminates growth problems inside and stainless eliminates maintenance problems inside. For dagger boards, I'd use 2x12s. More elaborate ones can be made any time, after getting ones self out cruising. I'd weld the trunks and gussets in fully, before cutting the holes out. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > Any design idea that you would care to share about the dagger boards. How to > hang them, how close to the rudder, Length, depth and material ? I am still in > the stage I may be willing to give something like that a try. My first thought > was of matching the angle of the keels. > > Aaron > > > > ________________________________ > From: brentswain38 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tue, October 12, 2010 11:07:57 AM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: For me it is steel or well-designed classic plastic > >   > I once met a Frenchman, named Andre who had a couple of dagger boards either > side of his rudder, angled out at about 20 degrees. He said, with the dagger > boards down ,it was impossible to broach, or to get her to sail anywhere but > dead downwind, until you begin to raise the dagger boards. Wish I had done that > on my last boat . I had considered doing it. It would have been so simple to do. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > Absolutely Brent. I am looking at the options, including a cooler in the skeg > >(listening to all the posts here). I would leave the rudder on the keel though, > >and add a second rudder on the transom, and have a self-steering gear on that > >one. The keel rudder would be tied off most of the time, but a rudder is > >something I would prefer to add, rather than replace, so that any one of a > >number of single failures do not leave the boat rudderless. This Bounty II: > > > >http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f47/bounty-ii-refit-and-circumnavigation-14711.html > >l > > > > Was abandoned on its way to Hawaii because it lost control of its rudder in an > >extended hurricane. After a collision with the freighter that rescued the owner, > >it was last seen still floating, so a cautionary tale. > > > > > > The keel rudder however will have more positive directional control in docking > >operations when the wash of the propeller right on it will be useful. > > > > > > Going downwind is always the most unstable point of sail, and every little bit > >helps. > > > > > > Matt > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 23:56:14 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: For me it is steel or well-designed classic > plastic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Many of those older classics had a short keel with the rudder > > attached. This led to an abysmal lack of control downwind in rough > > conditions, ( as I learned the hard way on my first boat) > > > > This can be drastically improved by removing the rudder from the keel > > and replacing it with a rudder on a skeg, with a vertical rudder post, > > at the aft end of the waterline, or further back. I did that, and the > > improvement in downwind control was huge. > > > > I once suggested this to a friend, who had completed a circumnavigation > > on an Alberg 37. He said things got scary on that boat while running > > downwind in rough weather. Instead of the skeg mounted rudder , he put a > > daggerboard trunk and daggerboard in behind the keel hung rudder . He > > said he wished he had done that before his circumnavigation, as the > > improvement was huge. He also said he wished he had gone the aft rudder > > route. If you go for a steel skeg , it can be used as a keel cooler. > > > > The change in balance going to windward was minimal. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The boat I bought is a Rhodes Bounty II 41: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://astro.temple.edu/~bstavis/pr/bountyII.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When Grumman bought out the manufacturer, Coleman/Aeromarine, and also > bought > > > > > Pearson, the moulds were transferred to Pearson and the next year > > > > > Pearson started building the Pearson Rhodes 41 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > From: mdemers2005@ > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:48:01 -0400 > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] For me it is steel or well-designed classic > >plastic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, > > > > > > > > > > > what model of boat is yours? > > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24224|23988|2010-10-14 14:26:17|brentswain38|Re: small oxy propane torch|There is absolutely no way you are going to blow 1 inch bronze shaft with a 1/8th inch hole thru to transfer the oxygen, nor the fittings made for the regulator, from the welding supplies. The trick is massive overkill on strength. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > This is my favourite video of tank to tank transfers. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsm7yQLW3Fo > > Whatever you think you need oxygen for in second tank, just use a regulator, adapter hose and the first tank, and forget the second tank you where thinking of refilling. > > Matt > > >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > >From: gary.lucas@... > >Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:10:10 -0400 > >Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: small oxy propane torch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >And one tiny drop of oil left over from the tapping operation splatters body parts all over the space station! > > > > > >Gary H. Lucas > > > > > >>From: brentswain38 > > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:40 PM > > >>To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > >>Subject: [origamiboats] Re: small oxy propane torch > > >> > > >>Same torch, same regs, different tip , around $15 > > >>You can buy the ends for the filler yoke from any welding supplies. High > pressure hydraulic hose connects > >>them. You need some kind of bleed > screw to let the pressure off when you have > >>filled a small bottle from a > big one. This you can build from a piece of one inch > >>bronze shaft, a > reliable overkill. Drill and tap the ends for a 1/4 inch sch 40 pipe > > >>tap, which your ends and your hydraulic hose fit. Keep the hole in the > bronze > >>shaft between them tiny, about 1/8th inch , drill and tap the > hole for the bleed > >>screw 90 degrees to this hole, to meet it, for a 1/4 > ss bolt , sharpened to a point, > >>and a tiny hole opposite for the point > to go in. > > >>Without bleeding off the pressure , you will never get the rig unbolted > >>under pressure. > > >>You are dealing with dangerously high pressure . Make sure everything is a > >>gross overkill on strength. > > > > >>--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 03:23:50PM -0000, h wrote: > > >>> > how'd you do the yoke, I was wondering about that, all solid pipe to > > >>> > take the full pressure? one of these days I'm sure I'll run across a > > >>> > set of regulators and hoses what do you need special for using > > >>> > propane. > > >>> > > >>> I'd really like to have an oxy-propane rig myself. What's the > > >>> best/cheapest way to set one up, especially when it comes to > > >>> buying/filling the oxy cylinder? Do I need to buy any special fittings, > > >>> anything different as far the torch goes? I already have the propane on > > >>> board, and I understand that propane needs a different tip. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > >>> Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > >>> Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > >>> 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > >>> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24225|24221|2010-10-14 23:43:25|Ben Okopnik|Re: Hydrogen welding|On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 04:35:57PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > Ben, > > You are good in research. It is relatively easy to make hydrogen > generator if you have source of fresh water and electricity > (wind/hydro, solar)on a boat. That "relatively easy" does not mean "practical", I'm afraid. The amount of energy necessary to break that H/O bond is pretty high, so while you can indeed split the two of them off, you'd be using a whole lot of juice doing so. It's quite inefficient. Take a look at the Wikipedia entry for "water splitting"; one of the first things it says is "Efficient and economical water splitting would be a key technology component of a hydrogen economy." That "would be" is why we're still using gasoline in all our cars. Another quote, same page: "Production of hydrogen from water requires large amounts of energy and is uncompetitive with production from coal or natural gas." > There are 2 options I know: "hydroxy gas" (H2 + 0) and Atomic Hydrogen > Welding (AHW). "Hydroxy gas" could be very dangerous, I do not know > about AHW. > > Some link for the start on AHW: > > http://www.specialwelds.com/underwater-welding/atomic-hydrogen-welding.htm > > What do you think about it (from practical point of view)? As far as AHW goes, you can't get the equipment (the above page says that the unit shown is their last one, and they only have it because they cannibalized others.) It's a nifty idea - 4000 degrees C is pretty hard to come by - but I can't imagine a use for it for anybody in this forum; it's more the kind of thing you'd use to weld prop shafts for battleships. Unfortunately, power production and welding processes/equipment are two of the areas where a huge number of con-men have concentrated their attention (there are many reasons for this; one, for example, is that both 1) are relatively simple in principle and can be done with simple/ inexpensive equipment and 2) seem like magic to the average Joe, whose scientific reasoning "ability" comes from believing in walking on water, twelve apostles, arising from the dead 3 days after being killed by jealous priests, etc. [1]) Because of this, getting good information about what's real is very difficult - particularly around things like hydrogen production (there are *lots* of people who will sell you a "hydrogen generator kit" or "plans" for one, which will power your car, your house, etc. for "free" - because, y'know, that's what water costs.) Unless you do a huge amount of research, you're not going to get much of anything useful - and being suspicious of anything that sounds too good to be true is not a bad idea, even more so than the usual. Those of you who believe in the Egyptian god Horus, sorry for singling you out. Were you thinking of someone else? :) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24226|23988|2010-10-15 12:42:59|Carl Volkwein|Re: small oxy propane torch|I was talking to a guy up here that uses propane instead of accetalene, and he claimed you don't need to change anything, just lower the presure at the gauges. carlvolkwein --- On Wed, 10/13/10, Ben Okopnik wrote: From: Ben Okopnik Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: small oxy propane torch To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 10:57 PM   On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 08:10:10PM -0400, Gary H. Lucas wrote: > And one tiny drop of oil left over from the tapping operation > splatters body parts all over the space station! Good point; you'd definitely want to clean every last trace of oil off that rig. I recall seeing a video when I was in welding school in which high-pressure oxy came in contact with oil; impressive enough that I still recall it now, several years down the road. The guy in the video was lucky... if the BOOM had happened a second earlier, it would have taken a whole lot of band-aids to put him back together. I wasn't able to find the one I recall, but here's a "fun" video about the power of compressed oxy (includes impressive blood splatters): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lw_fhNAIQc -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24227|24221|2010-10-15 13:02:05|wild_explorer|Re: Hydrogen welding|OK, idea is dead... If it is not practical, I do not see any reason for a discussion of using AHW. Major drawbacks: - equipment for AHW is not available - limited usage in boat building - MOST "hydrogen generator kits" advertised on Internet are suitable for school project only. Industrial type of hydrogen generators are expensive. GOOD plans for hydrogen generators are FREE, but... will be very hard to do it as DIY project. Thanks for your help Ben. I have limited access to Internet at this time. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > That "relatively easy" does not mean "practical", I'm afraid. The amount > > > As far as AHW goes, you can't get the equipment (the above page says > > > hard to come by - but I can't imagine a use for it for anybody in this > forum; it's more the kind of thing you'd use to weld prop shafts for > battleships. | 24228|24221|2010-10-15 13:39:26|Aaron Williams|Re: Hydrogen welding|Dead for this group maybe but check out twhat these guys have been up to. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/watercar/ ________________________________ From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, October 15, 2010 9:02:04 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Hydrogen welding   OK, idea is dead... If it is not practical, I do not see any reason for a discussion of using AHW. Major drawbacks: - equipment for AHW is not available - limited usage in boat building - MOST "hydrogen generator kits" advertised on Internet are suitable for school project only. Industrial type of hydrogen generators are expensive. GOOD plans for hydrogen generators are FREE, but... will be very hard to do it as DIY project. Thanks for your help Ben. I have limited access to Internet at this time. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > That "relatively easy" does not mean "practical", I'm afraid. The amount > > > As far as AHW goes, you can't get the equipment (the above page says > > > hard to come by - but I can't imagine a use for it for anybody in this > forum; it's more the kind of thing you'd use to weld prop shafts for > battleships. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24229|24221|2010-10-15 18:33:53|brentswain38|Re: Hydrogen welding|Use the juice to burn a welding rod . Keep it simple. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 04:35:57PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > Ben, > > > > You are good in research. It is relatively easy to make hydrogen > > generator if you have source of fresh water and electricity > > (wind/hydro, solar)on a boat. > > That "relatively easy" does not mean "practical", I'm afraid. The amount > of energy necessary to break that H/O bond is pretty high, so while you > can indeed split the two of them off, you'd be using a whole lot of > juice doing so. It's quite inefficient. Take a look at the Wikipedia > entry for "water splitting"; one of the first things it says is > "Efficient and economical water splitting would be a key technology > component of a hydrogen economy." That "would be" is why we're still > using gasoline in all our cars. Another quote, same page: "Production of > hydrogen from water requires large amounts of energy and is > uncompetitive with production from coal or natural gas." > > > There are 2 options I know: "hydroxy gas" (H2 + 0) and Atomic Hydrogen > > Welding (AHW). "Hydroxy gas" could be very dangerous, I do not know > > about AHW. > > > > Some link for the start on AHW: > > > > http://www.specialwelds.com/underwater-welding/atomic-hydrogen-welding.htm > > > > What do you think about it (from practical point of view)? > > As far as AHW goes, you can't get the equipment (the above page says > that the unit shown is their last one, and they only have it because > they cannibalized others.) It's a nifty idea - 4000 degrees C is pretty > hard to come by - but I can't imagine a use for it for anybody in this > forum; it's more the kind of thing you'd use to weld prop shafts for > battleships. > > Unfortunately, power production and welding processes/equipment are two > of the areas where a huge number of con-men have concentrated their > attention (there are many reasons for this; one, for example, is that > both 1) are relatively simple in principle and can be done with simple/ > inexpensive equipment and 2) seem like magic to the average Joe, whose > scientific reasoning "ability" comes from believing in walking on water, > twelve apostles, arising from the dead 3 days after being killed by > jealous priests, etc. [1]) Because of this, getting good information > about what's real is very difficult - particularly around things like > hydrogen production (there are *lots* of people who will sell you a > "hydrogen generator kit" or "plans" for one, which will power your car, > your house, etc. for "free" - because, y'know, that's what water costs.) > > Unless you do a huge amount of research, you're not going to get much of > anything useful - and being suspicious of anything that sounds too good > to be true is not a bad idea, even more so than the usual. > > > > Those of you who believe in the Egyptian god Horus, sorry for singling > you out. Were you thinking of someone else? :) > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > | 24230|23988|2010-10-15 18:39:16|brentswain38|Re: small oxy propane torch|A 20 lb bottle of propane will burn many large bottles of oxygen A single bottle of acetylene will only burn one bottle of oxygen,costs far more, puts out soot, you have to lease them ,pay rental fees, and you can't get a fill on a sunday. That is why most fabricating shops have switched to propane decades ago.That is why welding shops try to convince you to go acetylene. Acetylene is a suckers game . It makes no sense to use it, unless you are doing gas welding. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Carl Volkwein wrote: > > I was talking to a guy up here that uses propane instead of accetalene, and he claimed you don't need to change anything, just lower the presure at the gauges. > carlvolkwein > > --- On Wed, 10/13/10, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > From: Ben Okopnik > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: small oxy propane torch > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 10:57 PM > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 08:10:10PM -0400, Gary H. Lucas wrote: > > > And one tiny drop of oil left over from the tapping operation > > > splatters body parts all over the space station! > > > > Good point; you'd definitely want to clean every last trace of oil off > > that rig. I recall seeing a video when I was in welding school in which > > high-pressure oxy came in contact with oil; impressive enough that I > > still recall it now, several years down the road. The guy in the video > > was lucky... if the BOOM had happened a second earlier, it would have > > taken a whole lot of band-aids to put him back together. > > > > I wasn't able to find the one I recall, but here's a "fun" video about > > the power of compressed oxy (includes impressive blood splatters): > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lw_fhNAIQc > > > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24231|23988|2010-10-15 19:24:53|john dean|small oxy propane torch|Hello Brent I see a small propane torch in Harbor Freight web pages. I this a useful first step say for brazing small steel tubes etc. John Dean --- On Fri, 10/15/10, brentswain38 wrote: > From: brentswain38 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: small oxy propane torch > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Friday, October 15, 2010, 6:39 PM > A 20 lb bottle of propane will burn > many large bottles of oxygen  A single bottle of > acetylene will only burn one bottle of oxygen,costs far > more, puts out soot, you have to lease them ,pay rental > fees, and you can't get a fill on a sunday. > That is why most fabricating shops have switched to  > propane decades ago.That is why welding shops try to > convince you to go acetylene. > Acetylene is a suckers game . It makes no sense to use it, > unless you are doing gas welding. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > Carl Volkwein wrote: > > > > I was talking to a guy up here that uses propane > instead of accetalene, and he claimed you don't need to > change anything, just lower the presure at the gauges. > > carlvolkwein > > > > --- On Wed, 10/13/10, Ben Okopnik > wrote: > > > > From: Ben Okopnik > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: small oxy propane > torch > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 10:57 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > >    > > > > > >      > >        > >        > >       On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at > 08:10:10PM -0400, Gary H. Lucas wrote: > > > > > And one tiny drop of oil left over from the > tapping operation > > > > > splatters body parts all over the space station! > > > > > > > > Good point; you'd definitely want to clean every last > trace of oil off > > > > that rig. I recall seeing a video when I was in > welding school in which > > > > high-pressure oxy came in contact with oil; impressive > enough that I > > > > still recall it now, several years down the road. The > guy in the video > > > > was lucky... if the BOOM had happened a second > earlier, it would have > > > > taken a whole lot of band-aids to put him back > together. > > > > > > > > I wasn't able to find the one I recall, but here's a > "fun" video about > > > > the power of compressed oxy (includes impressive blood > splatters): > > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lw_fhNAIQc > > > > > > > > -- > > > >                >         OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > >         Custom Computing > Solutions For Your Business > > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom > programming > > > >                > 443-250-7895    http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > >      > >      > > > >      > >      > > > > > >  > > > > > > > >    > > > > > > > > > > > > > >        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! > Groups Links > > >     origamiboats-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > > | 24232|23988|2010-10-15 19:33:41|john dean|Re: small oxy propane torch|Hello that HF propane torch is item no. 91899 --- On Fri, 10/15/10, brentswain38 wrote: > From: brentswain38 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: small oxy propane torch > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Friday, October 15, 2010, 6:39 PM > A 20 lb bottle of propane will burn > many large bottles of oxygen  A single bottle of > acetylene will only burn one bottle of oxygen,costs far > more, puts out soot, you have to lease them ,pay rental > fees, and you can't get a fill on a sunday. > That is why most fabricating shops have switched to  > propane decades ago.That is why welding shops try to > convince you to go acetylene. > Acetylene is a suckers game . It makes no sense to use it, > unless you are doing gas welding. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > Carl Volkwein wrote: > > > > I was talking to a guy up here that uses propane > instead of accetalene, and he claimed you don't need to > change anything, just lower the presure at the gauges. > > carlvolkwein > > > > --- On Wed, 10/13/10, Ben Okopnik > wrote: > > > > From: Ben Okopnik > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: small oxy propane > torch > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 10:57 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > >    > > > > > >      > >        > >        > >       On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at > 08:10:10PM -0400, Gary H. Lucas wrote: > > > > > And one tiny drop of oil left over from the > tapping operation > > > > > splatters body parts all over the space station! > > > > > > > > Good point; you'd definitely want to clean every last > trace of oil off > > > > that rig. I recall seeing a video when I was in > welding school in which > > > > high-pressure oxy came in contact with oil; impressive > enough that I > > > > still recall it now, several years down the road. The > guy in the video > > > > was lucky... if the BOOM had happened a second > earlier, it would have > > > > taken a whole lot of band-aids to put him back > together. > > > > > > > > I wasn't able to find the one I recall, but here's a > "fun" video about > > > > the power of compressed oxy (includes impressive blood > splatters): > > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lw_fhNAIQc > > > > > > > > -- > > > >                >         OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > >         Custom Computing > Solutions For Your Business > > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom > programming > > > >                > 443-250-7895    http://okopnik.com > > > > > > > >      > >      > > > >      > >      > > > > > >  > > > > > > > >    > > > > > > > > > > > > > >        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! > Groups Links > > >     origamiboats-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > > | 24233|24221|2010-10-15 20:06:19|Ben Okopnik|Re: Hydrogen welding|On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:33:52PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > Use the juice to burn a welding rod . Keep it simple. Exactly my take. People that want to use that juice to power a Magic Box that will give them more power than they put into it failed their "Intro to Physics" class. Hmm, I just realized: that was in 4th grade in the Russian schools, but I have no idea what the US equivalent would be. Anyone care to comment? -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24234|23988|2010-10-15 20:07:24|Ben Okopnik|Re: small oxy propane torch|On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:39:06PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > A 20 lb bottle of propane will burn many large bottles of oxygen A single bottle of acetylene will only burn one bottle of oxygen,costs far more, puts out soot, you have to lease them ,pay rental fees, and you can't get a fill on a sunday. > That is why most fabricating shops have switched to propane decades ago.That is why welding shops try to convince you to go acetylene. > Acetylene is a suckers game . It makes no sense to use it, unless you are doing gas welding. Nice, concise explanation. Thanks, Brent. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24235|24221|2010-10-15 20:37:34|Ben Okopnik|Re: Hydrogen welding|On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:39:23AM -0700, Aaron Williams wrote: > Dead for this group maybe but check out twhat these guys have been up to. > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/watercar/ Actual tests: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/gas-mileage/4276846 Good, simple explanation of the failure in thinking behind HHO: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/gas-mileage/4271579 Quote: It takes exactly the same amount of energy to pry those hydrogen and oxygen atoms apart inside the electrolysis cell as you get back when they recombine inside the fuel cell. The laws of thermodynamics haven't changed, in spite of any hype you read on some blog or news aggregator. Subtract the losses to heat in the engine and alternator and electrolysis cell, and you're losing energy, not gaining it--period. Not a single one of the "but MY car gained XXX%" stories has ever proven itself out in an actual test performed by a reputable lab. Ever. And no mix of special pleading/observer bias/bad science/wishful thinking/etc. is going to change the laws of physics - but it does and will continue to empty suckers' pockets. [shrug] There's one born every minute; that group is proof of it. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24236|24221|2010-10-15 20:42:12|wild_explorer|Re: Hydrogen welding|Ben, we are not talking about "Magic box". I had a little bit more time today on Internet. Just some information for curious minds... AHW is grade 10 welding according to this government document http://www.opm.gov/fedclass/fws3703.pdf AWG was developed during early research on welding in shielding gases. http://www.welding.com/history_of_welding2.asp Advantages & disadvantages http://www.themetalmachine.com/Welding/Thermo_Chemical_Welding/Atomic_Hydrogen_Welding.html Some practical info http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/general/atomic-hydrogen-welding-210886/ As I wrote before, after some online research today, I do not see now usage of this process in steel boat building. But it could be usable for welding some alloys and metals you cannot weld by another process. P.S. And we are not talking about Over-Unity here. P.S.S I agree with Brent as well - keep it simple. That why I asked about practical use of it. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:33:52PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > Use the juice to burn a welding rod . Keep it simple. > > Exactly my take. People that want to use that juice to power a Magic Box > that will give them more power than they put into it failed their "Intro > to Physics" class. > > Hmm, I just realized: that was in 4th grade in the Russian schools, but > I have no idea what the US equivalent would be. Anyone care to comment? > | 24237|24221|2010-10-15 21:21:26|Aaron Williams|Re: Hydrogen welding|I am thinking what do you do with extra solar when your batteries a topped off. could you use some of the excess to make the hydrogen to run mixed in with the diesel fuel. ________________________________ From: Ben Okopnik To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, October 15, 2010 4:37:29 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Hydrogen welding   On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:39:23AM -0700, Aaron Williams wrote: > Dead for this group maybe but check out twhat these guys have been up to. > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/watercar/ Actual tests: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/gas-mileage/4276846 Good, simple explanation of the failure in thinking behind HHO: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/gas-mileage/4271579 Quote: It takes exactly the same amount of energy to pry those hydrogen and oxygen atoms apart inside the electrolysis cell as you get back when they recombine inside the fuel cell. The laws of thermodynamics haven't changed, in spite of any hype you read on some blog or news aggregator. Subtract the losses to heat in the engine and alternator and electrolysis cell, and you're losing energy, not gaining it--period. Not a single one of the "but MY car gained XXX%" stories has ever proven itself out in an actual test performed by a reputable lab. Ever. And no mix of special pleading/observer bias/bad science/wishful thinking/etc. is going to change the laws of physics - but it does and will continue to empty suckers' pockets. [shrug] There's one born every minute; that group is proof of it. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com I am [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24238|24221|2010-10-15 21:32:17|Ben Okopnik|Re: Hydrogen welding|On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:42:11AM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > Ben, we are not talking about "Magic box". I had a little bit more > time today on Internet. Just some information for curious minds... You've confused AHW - which is a real, actual welding process - with hydrogen generators, which is what the cited group is about. I'm not contesting anything about AHW. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24239|24221|2010-10-15 22:06:09|wild_explorer|Re: Hydrogen welding|There is nothing wrong with hydrogen generators as well. Just do not fall for those "car conversion kits", etc. which are all over Internet - they are not usable. I did deep research on hydrogen generators subject couple of years ago. GOOD hydrogen generator might be useful if you have extra electricity to run it. NASA and submarines use it with a good success to make oxygen as well as hydrogen as sub-product(different generator types that you see on Internet). Not sure about its applications on a sailboat. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > You've confused AHW - which is a real, actual welding process - with > hydrogen generators, which is what the cited group is about. I'm not > contesting anything about AHW. > | 24240|24221|2010-10-15 22:08:43|Ben Okopnik|Re: Hydrogen welding|On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 06:21:23PM -0700, Aaron Williams wrote: > I am thinking what do you do with extra solar when your batteries a topped off. > could you use some of the excess to make the hydrogen to run mixed in with the > diesel fuel. (Hydrogen mixed with diesel fuel... wow, can't even imagine how that would work.) In practice, I've never seen any extra solar aboard boats, any more than there's extra money. :) The only boat where I ever heard mention of excess power was a 60+' custom-built sailboat in the islands that had a 12'W x 20'L (estimated) pilothouse that was covered in solar panels - the captain was in the custom refrigeration business, and had designed and built the power and freezer/fridge system herself, and the whole thing was impressive as hell. She could have frozen a couple of cows in that thing, all powered off the solar. I thought of trying to hook up with her (she'd kicked her husband off the boat when he decided that he didn't want to sail anymore, and was doing everything herself), but... she was about 10 years older than me and just didn't appeal on a personal level. Darn it. :) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24241|24221|2010-10-15 22:14:18|wild_explorer|Re: Hydrogen welding|It could be done, but not worth of possible troubles. Diesel engine is more suitable for conversion than gasoline engine, but it is need to do it VERY CAREFULLY. Not every engine can handle it. You do not want to loose your engine when you need it most. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > I am thinking what do you do with extra solar when your batteries a topped off. > could you use some of the excess to make the hydrogen to run mixed in with the > diesel fuel. | 24242|24221|2010-10-16 06:44:57|David Frantz|Re: Hydrogen welding|Physics as a course is high school material. Some of the basics would have been covered in earlier grades as science classes. Of course that was like 35 years ago for me. More so I consider myself some what lucky in that I had one very good science teacher. Considering what I have to deal with younger generation wise, schools can't be all that good anymore. David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Oct 15, 2010, at 8:06 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:33:52PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: >> Use the juice to burn a welding rod . Keep it simple. > > Exactly my take. People that want to use that juice to power a Magic Box > that will give them more power than they put into it failed their "Intro > to Physics" class. > > Hmm, I just realized: that was in 4th grade in the Russian schools, but > I have no idea what the US equivalent would be. Anyone care to comment? > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24243|24221|2010-10-16 09:50:48|Ben Okopnik|Re: Hydrogen welding|On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 06:43:29AM -0400, David Frantz wrote: > Physics as a course is high school material. Some of the basics > would have been covered in earlier grades as science classes. Of > course that was like 35 years ago for me. Yeah - the sense that I'm getting is that it used to be taught here, but is either not taught at all these days, or there's some kind of peripheral mention, or it's only taught in the high-end (e.g., private) schools. Could explain why we're not graduating nearly the number of engineers or hard science majors that we need. > More so I consider myself some what lucky in that I had one very good > science teacher. Considering what I have to deal with younger > generation wise, schools can't be all that good anymore. I'm right there with you. I can't even begin to convey how much that troubles me... seems we've sold our future down the river in exchange for a couple of generations of rich, easy, soft living. Didn't take much, or long, to ruin one of the best countries in the world. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24244|24244|2010-10-18 09:22:53|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|surprise weight|I had my sailboat lifted on my trailer this past weekend and to my surprise the crane weighted my boat at 18,000 pounds. It is a 37 steel classic, I always tought that it would weight less than a Swain 36 because it is made of 1/8in thick plate, and have a smaller aft section. maybe it has more lead in the keel than what I tought...| 24245|24245|2010-10-18 10:52:06|Alan|Rough weather|I have recently been reading alot about heavy weather tactics. There are alot of different opinions, but most experienced people seem to believe that a full keeled boat and a fin keeled boat require different handling techniques in rough weather. I have not read anything that specificly addresses how a twin keel boat should deal with extreme conditions. I don't claim any great knowledge of hull designs, but it seems to me that a twin keeler would have some charactertics of a fin keel and some of a full keel. I would like to hear from anyone who has had a twin keeler out in severe weather. How did it behave and what tactics do you think work best with this type of boat? Happy sailing to you all, Alan| 24246|24244|2010-10-18 12:05:04|Carl Anderson|Re: surprise weight|Well that IS less than a Swain 36.... I have not heard of any Swain 36 that was much under 20,000 pounds when put on the scale..... now I'm talking a FINISHED boat here not one that is still half exposed foam.... Silas Crosby has a finished displacement of 20,000 DarMi is near 20,000 as well as Idefix IV being over 19,000.... but then your mileage may vary..... Carl sv-mom.com On 10/18/2010 6:22 AM, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > I had my sailboat lifted on my trailer this past weekend and to my > surprise the crane weighted my boat at 18,000 pounds. It is a 37 steel > classic, I always tought that it would weight less than a Swain 36 > because it is made of 1/8in thick plate, and have a smaller aft > section. maybe it has more lead in the keel than what I tought... > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24247|24245|2010-10-18 13:03:01|Matt Malone|Re: Rough weather|Excellent question. Every source I have read indicates, everything aspect of increased lateral resistance that makes a bilge-keel twin keel boat better when the boat heels, also provides a greater rolling moment toward a knock-down situation. On a single keel boat, the closer one gets to a knock-down, the hydrodynamic influence of the keel assisting in the knock down goes to zero. One also experiences a keel effectiveness penalty when moderately heeled though, over a twin-keeler. With a twin keeler, with keels at +/- 15 degrees from vertical, their hydrodynamic contribution to knockdown goes to zero at 105 degrees of roll, when the rail is firmly planted in the water and there is likely water on the coachhouse. So for the same wave, one expects the mast will slap the water harder with a twin keeler in the same situation. Will there be a wave eventually that knocks both down, all other things being equal ? Sure. Probably dozens of them in any really good storm. It seems all other geometrical effects of twin keels vs. heavy weather can be compensated for, if the designer compensates for them, but to compensate, would also give up some of the advantage of twin keels. I think the morale of the story is, prepare for a knockdown in other ways, or stay at home and stay out of heavy weather. I am thinking, an inside steering position, attention to essential systems, and how essential supplies are stowed, particularly fuels, and foods. Every bad but otherwise recoverable heavy weather story I have ever read has started with "fuel spill in the cabin" and "bulk of the food destroyed". Diesel loves rice and beans. I would focus on storage of essentials as the back up to a near-indestructible rig and boat. Because slight damage to boat or rig will have one relying more heavily on fuel or food. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24248|24244|2010-10-18 14:15:12|brentswain38|Re: surprise weight|Framing can easily make up the difference you save by lighter plate. I read about a Tahiti ketch which had 3,000 lbs of framing in, which without frames would take 3/8th inch plate to weigh the same --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > I had my sailboat lifted on my trailer this past weekend and to my surprise the crane weighted my boat at 18,000 pounds. It is a 37 steel classic, I always tought that it would weight less than a Swain 36 because it is made of 1/8in thick plate, and have a smaller aft section. maybe it has more lead in the keel than what I tought... > | 24249|24244|2010-10-18 14:23:25|brentswain38|Re: surprise weight|It all depends on how much interior you put in. I have never recommended lining the entire hull with 800 lbs, and $800 worth of plywood before putting the interior in. That is a common screwup. I remember around bilged 36 ft steel hull in Maple Bay back in the 80s . It was 1/8th plate for the hull. They let a couple of land carpenters loose to put the interior in. They lined the entire hull with 1 inch plywood, then covered that with 1 inch teak, then began building the interior, in a similar fashion. The result was very low in the water. It was heavier than 1/4" plate. People have made similar mistakes with wood trim on the aluminium door , making it heavier than a steel one would weigh. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Carl Anderson wrote: > > Well that IS less than a Swain 36.... > I have not heard of any Swain 36 that was much under 20,000 pounds when > put on the scale..... > now I'm talking a FINISHED boat here not one that is still half exposed > foam.... > Silas Crosby has a finished displacement of 20,000 DarMi is near 20,000 > as well as Idefix IV being over 19,000.... > but then your mileage may vary..... > > Carl > sv-mom.com > > > On 10/18/2010 6:22 AM, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > > > > > I had my sailboat lifted on my trailer this past weekend and to my > > surprise the crane weighted my boat at 18,000 pounds. It is a 37 steel > > classic, I always tought that it would weight less than a Swain 36 > > because it is made of 1/8in thick plate, and have a smaller aft > > section. maybe it has more lead in the keel than what I tought... > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24250|24245|2010-10-18 14:32:45|brentswain38|Re: Rough weather|While twin keels will have more of a tripping action that tripping action is not as deep as a single keel ,offsetting it to some extent. Each twin keel is half the surface area of a single keel, as they are that much more efficient ,being upright when heeled. Twin keels have far less of a rythmic rolling. which also reduces the odds of a knockdown. I prefer a drogue of The stern quarter, which should almost eliminate the chances of a rollover. I've had no problems in my twin keel 31 in extremely rough conditions at sea. I use a single lift lid for my berths,instead of those goofy little holes, which make it hard to find and maintain things. Ditto for my floor. All are tied down with 3/8th inch braid, in rouhgh weather. at sea.. Then you could roll my boat thru 360 degrees ,without much coming loose. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Excellent question. Every source I have read indicates, everything aspect of increased lateral resistance that makes a bilge-keel twin keel boat better when the boat heels, also provides a greater rolling moment toward a knock-down situation. On a single keel boat, the closer one gets to a knock-down, the hydrodynamic influence of the keel assisting in the knock down goes to zero. One also experiences a keel effectiveness penalty when moderately heeled though, over a twin-keeler. With a twin keeler, with keels at +/- 15 degrees from vertical, their hydrodynamic contribution to knockdown goes to zero at 105 degrees of roll, when the rail is firmly planted in the water and there is likely water on the coachhouse. So for the same wave, one expects the mast will slap the water harder with a twin keeler in the same situation. Will there be a wave eventually that knocks both down, all other things being equal ? Sure. Probably dozens of them in any really good storm. > > It seems all other geometrical effects of twin keels vs. heavy weather can be compensated > for, if the designer compensates for them, but to compensate, would > also give up some of the advantage of twin keels. > > I think the morale of the story is, prepare for a knockdown in other ways, or stay at home and stay out of heavy weather. > > I am thinking, an inside steering position, attention to essential systems, and how essential supplies are stowed, particularly fuels, and foods. Every bad but otherwise recoverable heavy weather story I have ever read has started with "fuel spill in the cabin" and "bulk of the food destroyed". Diesel loves rice and beans. I would focus on storage of essentials as the back up to a near-indestructible rig and boat. Because slight damage to boat or rig will have one relying more heavily on fuel or food. > > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24251|24251|2010-10-18 14:42:46|Linus|Any Brent boats on the East Coast US?|I have been watching this forum for a while now and am curious if there are any Origami boats in my area. I would really like to see one in person :-)| 24252|24251|2010-10-18 17:27:12|John Riehl|Re: Any Brent boats on the East Coast US?|Especially if on the Chesapeake, I'd be interested too. Thanks in advance John Sent from my iPhone On Oct 18, 2010, at 12:27 PM, "Linus" wrote: > I have been watching this forum for a while now and am curious if there are any Origami boats in my area. I would really like to see one in person :-) > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24253|24253|2010-10-18 17:37:13|Kim|My Swain 26 construction blog has moved!|Hello everyone ... I have moved the blog I had (on Google's Blogger/Blogspot pages) with all the construction photos of my Swain 26. The new URL is: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht Blogspot is OK; but I think it's more suitable for mostly-text posts, and not all that good for mostly-photos posts. Also, I found its HTML editor awkward and time-consuming to use. One would have thought that all those PhD engineers employed at Google would have been able to come up with a better editor than what they've got there. Anyway, the new site is a specialist photo-sharing place. At it's new home there will be more photos, bigger photos, it's easier to navigate, and it's just generally better. At the new site, the photo captions tell the story - that's all the text that's needed! Cheers ... Kim.| 24254|24253|2010-10-18 20:02:06|David Frantz|Re: My Swain 26 construction blog has moved!|Sometimes a PhD is defect as far as writing usable software goes. The fact is Google's software may be very usable in the minds of the PhD working there but that only because they have their whole heads wrapped around the suite. In many way Google is one of the more overrated success stories of our recent times. In any event thanks for the link, it has been booked marked! By the way the site looks great on my Mac with Safari! The photo caption approach really works well conveying your build efforts. Dave On 10/18/10 5:37 PM000, Kim wrote: > Hello everyone ... > > I have moved the blog I had (on Google's Blogger/Blogspot pages) with all the construction photos of my Swain 26. > > The new URL is: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > Blogspot is OK; but I think it's more suitable for mostly-text posts, and not all that good for mostly-photos posts. Also, I found its HTML editor awkward and time-consuming to use. One would have thought that all those PhD engineers employed at Google would have been able to come up with a better editor than what they've got there. > > Anyway, the new site is a specialist photo-sharing place. At it's new home there will be more photos, bigger photos, it's easier to navigate, and it's just generally better. At the new site, the photo captions tell the story - that's all the text that's needed! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24255|24251|2010-10-18 20:04:15|David Frantz|Re: Any Brent boats on the East Coast US?|I'm on the east coast upstate NY but unfortunately the only boat I have right at the moment is the one in my mind. I really haven't heard of any either but that might have a lot to due with being a working stiff. Dave On 10/18/10 5:26 PM000, John Riehl wrote: > Especially if on the Chesapeake, I'd be interested too. Thanks in advance > > John > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 18, 2010, at 12:27 PM, "Linus" wrote: > >> I have been watching this forum for a while now and am curious if there are any Origami boats in my area. I would really like to see one in person :-) >> >> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24256|24221|2010-10-18 20:17:15|David Frantz|Re: Hydrogen welding|What is sad is working in industry these days. A good number of the kids leaving high school can't even function in a modern factory. If they can at all it is usually in a very limited and focused area. As a side note I work in automation and frankly find the slow die off in skills in this area very distressing. The plant I work in at least has some management support in this area as the sponsor a robotics team, but honestly that doesn't make up for a good education. More so few kids these days seem to have a mechanical aptitude, having lived the give me life style for far to long. I know that simply growing up the way I did, in the country, has resulted in a vastly different set of skills than your average kid these days. The bicycle I had as a kid came with a garage and a box of parts, it was up to me to keep it running. I actually mis my fathers garage as it was large and fulled with more tools than I would even have room for right now. Dave On 10/16/10 9:50 AM000, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 06:43:29AM -0400, David Frantz wrote: >> Physics as a course is high school material. Some of the basics >> would have been covered in earlier grades as science classes. Of >> course that was like 35 years ago for me. > Yeah - the sense that I'm getting is that it used to be taught here, but > is either not taught at all these days, or there's some kind of > peripheral mention, or it's only taught in the high-end (e.g., private) > schools. Could explain why we're not graduating nearly the number of > engineers or hard science majors that we need. > >> More so I consider myself some what lucky in that I had one very good >> science teacher. Considering what I have to deal with younger >> generation wise, schools can't be all that good anymore. > I'm right there with you. I can't even begin to convey how much that > troubles me... seems we've sold our future down the river in exchange > for a couple of generations of rich, easy, soft living. Didn't take > much, or long, to ruin one of the best countries in the world. > > | 24257|24251|2010-10-19 08:04:38|A Ellzey|Re: Any Brent boats on the East Coast US?|I have one under construction on the upper chesapeake bay ________________________________ From: David Frantz To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Cc: John Riehl Sent: Mon, October 18, 2010 8:04:05 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Any Brent boats on the East Coast US?   I'm on the east coast upstate NY but unfortunately the only boat I have right at the moment is the one in my mind. I really haven't heard of any either but that might have a lot to due with being a working stiff. Dave On 10/18/10 5:26 PM000, John Riehl wrote: > Especially if on the Chesapeake, I'd be interested too. Thanks in advance > > John > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 18, 2010, at 12:27 PM, "Linus" wrote: > >> I have been watching this forum for a while now and am curious if there are any >>Origami boats in my area. I would really like to see one in person :-) >> >> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: >origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24258|24258|2010-10-19 08:38:23|jhess314|source for aluminum plate|Can anyone recommend a source for marine-grade aluminum (5086) sheet and plate in the northeast US. Thanks, John| 24259|24221|2010-10-19 14:39:44|brentswain38|Re: Hydrogen welding|When I had a bit of work to do on a boat in Richmond BC the owner sent a kid as a helper who had done a computer course. He said that with $15,000 in student debt, the job paid $150 an a hour when he began then dropped to $15 an hour, as the supply of programmers was inflated and saturated. I suggested he get a welding ticket, one of the quickest ways to get a tradesmans wages. When I was building another 36, I suggested to the owner that he can pay me $30 an hou, or hire a 23 year old I knew, who grew up cruising on a sister ship, $15 an hour, to do the grinding, welding and detailing. He did, and the kid has since got a welding ticket built and finished several of my hulls , got into construction, and has had more work shoved his way than he can handle. When kid in the boxing club was about to graduate high school, I asked him what his plans were. He said he was thinking about the tourism industry. I suggested he get a welding ticket. He said that was not what he wanted to do. I said "Get a welding ticket. Then you won't be paying for the rest of your education by flipping burgers for minimum wages. Consider a welding ticket a stepping stone. " The problem is, governments and industry would rather import skilled trades people, than train our own youth, as it is the overnight quick flip of shares that motivates our economy, rather than the long term health of the economy, or that of our future generations. Meanwhile, they do everything they can to discourage our youth from persuing a career in the trades. When the oil patch was desperately short of qualified welders, it was taking a year and a half for a student to get into a welding course in Vancouver. Kids get their "Guidance " counseling from people who's career aspirations have risen to the lofty , dizzying heights of a high school guidance counselor. Perhaps that explains a lot. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > What is sad is working in industry these days. A good number of the > kids leaving high school can't even function in a modern factory. If > they can at all it is usually in a very limited and focused area. > > As a side note I work in automation and frankly find the slow die off in > skills in this area very distressing. The plant I work in at least has > some management support in this area as the sponsor a robotics team, but > honestly that doesn't make up for a good education. More so few kids > these days seem to have a mechanical aptitude, having lived the give me > life style for far to long. > > I know that simply growing up the way I did, in the country, has > resulted in a vastly different set of skills than your average kid these > days. The bicycle I had as a kid came with a garage and a box of > parts, it was up to me to keep it running. I actually mis my fathers > garage as it was large and fulled with more tools than I would even have > room for right now. > > Dave > On 10/16/10 9:50 AM000, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 06:43:29AM -0400, David Frantz wrote: > >> Physics as a course is high school material. Some of the basics > >> would have been covered in earlier grades as science classes. Of > >> course that was like 35 years ago for me. > > Yeah - the sense that I'm getting is that it used to be taught here, but > > is either not taught at all these days, or there's some kind of > > peripheral mention, or it's only taught in the high-end (e.g., private) > > schools. Could explain why we're not graduating nearly the number of > > engineers or hard science majors that we need. > > > >> More so I consider myself some what lucky in that I had one very good > >> science teacher. Considering what I have to deal with younger > >> generation wise, schools can't be all that good anymore. > > I'm right there with you. I can't even begin to convey how much that > > troubles me... seems we've sold our future down the river in exchange > > for a couple of generations of rich, easy, soft living. Didn't take > > much, or long, to ruin one of the best countries in the world. > > > > > | 24260|24221|2010-10-19 14:49:45|Mark Hamill|Re: Hydrogen welding|I have two degrees and a diploma in Public Zookeeping (no kidding) and I REALLY wish I had a trade like electrical or welding etc. or had become an engineer-(-wait a minute how many beers have I had)--so I agree with Brent. I had much fun being employed with my degrees but cannot find work now. MarkH ps found the snatch blocks yeasterday so will have dimensions and pictures soon [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24261|24261|2010-10-19 17:50:18|Denis Buggy|Re: technial knowlege|What you all speak about is common in Europe also. our technical trades schools have closed due to lack of interest as why would anybody do an apprenticeship for less than the minimum wage when you could drive a dumper on a motorway for 800 euros = 1200 usd per week . now the construction boom has disappeared and there is no need for apprentices as Ireland has got used to Polish people doing the trades as they are so clearly superior to our own trades people as they grow up attending technical schools which are not stigmatized by snobbery like here in Ireland --where people from a troubled background and those with learning difficulties are mysteriously STREAMED by the principals of all the high schools into technical school ensuring anybody who would wish for a technical education would run a mile from the school as it is social death in certain circles to state you attend a technical school . I work with Polish people and it is a welcome education on a lot of levels for me -- to work with people who have been trained in electronics on a broad canvas and then have studied the operation of many various machine tools and woodworking machines at a slow pace where a true understanding is developed and then trained as mechanics while doing their national service -- they are calmer and more able than most of us and I learn a little each day . this training and approach is unknown in this country of apprenticed academics going no where slowly -- it leads to frustration envy and resentment as clearly somebody is to blame other than their parents or their teachers and they will repeat the same mistakes with their own children . our country is being prepared for a SMART ECONOMY whatever that is -- however I do not think it is too clever . my brother in law is responsible for the fuselages of a fleet of 220 Boeing 737s and he originally was a car mechanic and was then accepted as a trainee aircraft mechanic who took a gamble and decided to do all the licences on one aircraft -- a 737 -- his progression to his job is now unusual as people of ability no longer apprentice themselves to a trade where as 40 years ago it was the norm he once told me about 25 Arab students who were sent to study aircraft maintainence and had to be sent home as they had no aptitude whatever and had never played with mechanical toys as children it was discovered . some body had better wake up soon because if there was some calamity in Asia we would quickly grind to a halt in Europe and the Americas where all factories have gone east and the ability to make the simplest object has died out here . Denis Buggy > What is sad is working in industry these days. A good number of the > kids leaving high school can't even function in a modern factory. If > they can at all it is usually in a very limited and focused area. > > As . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24262|24221|2010-10-19 20:38:27|David Frantz|Re: Hydrogen welding|A very long time ago I had the good fortune to spend a couple of years working with an extremely talented machine tool builder. Several times he avoided the draft in WW2 due to his skills being considered an assest. The thing is he also had a long carrer in boat building and repair amonst other things. I think the problem these day is that people see what ever training they get in high school as an imprint for their entire life. Frankly it seems to come from the education community more than anything. This is incredibly narrow minded of the schools but I guess it is part of the mentality of the unionized educational system. As you note this does the students a big disservice which some never overcome. Frankly it leads to a bit of entittlement thinking as people start to expect their job to be around forever. It is one thing to love your work, it is another thing to get so wrapped up in it that you can't do anything else. This has left a lot of people hurting for work. Sadly it is a problem in the professional fields as well as the trades. Sometime ago I knew a lady that was having trouble with her husband after getting let go from a bank. He too was suffering from this idea that he "deserved" a banking job. Learninga craft that pays good money is an extremely smart move in my mind even if your long term plans are different. If you have ever worked with a good engineer, with a sense as to how to get things done, it is very likely he has spent some time in the trenches. In any event I do have to wonder about students that think flipping burgers is the way to make it through college. I guess it could be done, but damn you need to work a lot of hours to pay for those burgers. David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Oct 19, 2010, at 2:39 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > | 24263|24221|2010-10-20 04:49:24|ursus_222|Re: Hydrogen welding|I got out of welding school in 1975 here in B.C. and I have had a valid welding ticket or multiple tickets since, it was always a boom and bust industry where one year you couldn't buy a job and the next they were bringing in people from all over until recently when the tar sands picked up in 2000-01, since then it is pretty stable with the exception of last year. I have a friend who worked at the local home hardware in Northern B.C. since we got out of school and he is far better off then most of the people I know who have spent their entire lives in construction. As a pressure welder I am required to test before I can get on the job and while on the job I have to pass x-rays or I am down the road. Welding is not for everyone and it is often a thankless job and everyone thinks that us Union guys are over paid and under worked, whatever. It has been a good career but with the changes in the industry brought in by companies like Exxon I am glad I am at the end of mine, that and I need at least #4 (glasses + cheater) for tig. I am now concentrating on either buying a Brent Boat or building one and getting the hell out of construction and the rat race in general. I weld for the Boilermakers and the Pipefitters! From what I have seen of the Origami boats I think they are the best way for me to go. Cheers Vic. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > A very long time ago I had the good fortune to spend a couple of years working with an extremely talented machine tool builder. Several times he avoided the draft in WW2 due to his skills being considered an assest. The thing is he also had a long carrer in boat building and repair amonst other things. > > I think the problem these day is that people see what ever training they get in high school as an imprint for their entire life. Frankly it seems to come from the education community more than anything. This is incredibly narrow minded of the schools but I guess it is part of the mentality of the unionized educational system. As you note this does the students a big disservice which some never overcome. > > Frankly it leads to a bit of entittlement thinking as people start to expect their job to be around forever. It is one thing to love your work, it is another thing to get so wrapped up in it that you can't do anything else. This has left a lot of people hurting for work. Sadly it is a problem in the professional fields as well as the trades. Sometime ago I knew a lady that was having trouble with her husband after getting let go from a bank. He too was suffering from this idea that he "deserved" a banking job. > > Learninga craft that pays good money is an extremely smart move in my mind even if your long term plans are different. If you have ever worked with a good engineer, with a sense as to how to get things done, it is very likely he has spent some time in the trenches. > > In any event I do have to wonder about students that think flipping burgers is the way to make it through college. I guess it could be done, but damn you need to work a lot of hours to pay for those burgers. > > > > David A Frantz > > websterindustro@... > Sent from my iPhone. > > On Oct 19, 2010, at 2:39 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > | 24264|24264|2010-10-20 12:51:29|Mark Hamill|Block Diagram and Photos|Uploaded new file under "DIY Block"--if you have any questions be happy to answer. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24265|24264|2010-10-20 13:19:00|Doug Jackson|Re: Block Diagram and Photos|Thanks Mark. It's your design or your build? What is the approximate working load? Is that UHMW or a cutting board? Would you mind if I put this on my web site? Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 11:50:56 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Uploaded new file under "DIY Block"--if you have any questions be happy to answer. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24266|24264|2010-10-20 14:24:48|Mark Hamill|Re: Block Diagram and Photos|Hi Doug: It was my design and build--had all 4 hot dipped galvanized. The plastic is not bread board--built them years ago and cannot remember I think it was he more expensive stuff--I have theleftover plastic if there is a way to tell. I do not know what the working load is but they have withstood several season permanent moorage on my 35 foot catamaran hulls--i used to use them for a bridle set up. Feel free to use them on your site--glad to help stopping re-inventing the wheel constantly. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Jackson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Thanks Mark. It's your design or your build? What is the approximate working load? Is that UHMW or a cutting board? Would you mind if I put this on my web site? Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 11:50:56 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Uploaded new file under "DIY Block"--if you have any questions be happy to answer. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24267|24264|2010-10-20 15:59:56|Doug Jackson|Re: Block Diagram and Photos|Thanks again Mark. I started a page for Block & Tackle and your contribution makes a great start. http://www.submarineboat.com/block_&_tackel.htm Peace Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 1:24:57 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Hi Doug: It was my design and build--had all 4 hot dipped galvanized. The plastic is not bread board--built them years ago and cannot remember I think it was he more expensive stuff--I have theleftover plastic if there is a way to tell. I do not know what the working load is but they have withstood several season permanent moorage on my 35 foot catamaran hulls--i used to use them for a bridle set up. Feel free to use them on your site--glad to help stopping re-inventing the wheel constantly. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Jackson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Thanks Mark. It's your design or your build? What is the approximate working load? Is that UHMW or a cutting board? Would you mind if I put this on my web site? Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 11:50:56 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Uploaded new file under "DIY Block"--if you have any questions be happy to answer. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24268|24264|2010-10-20 16:24:56|Mark Hamill|Re: Block Diagram and Photos|Doug: Thanks--looks great. I just remembered that I used an oiled sleeve bearing for the sheave. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Jackson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:59 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Thanks again Mark. I started a page for Block & Tackle and your contribution makes a great start. http://www.submarineboat.com/block_&_tackel.htm Peace Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 1:24:57 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Hi Doug: It was my design and build--had all 4 hot dipped galvanized. The plastic is not bread board--built them years ago and cannot remember I think it was he more expensive stuff--I have theleftover plastic if there is a way to tell. I do not know what the working load is but they have withstood several season permanent moorage on my 35 foot catamaran hulls--i used to use them for a bridle set up. Feel free to use them on your site--glad to help stopping re-inventing the wheel constantly. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Jackson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Thanks Mark. It's your design or your build? What is the approximate working load? Is that UHMW or a cutting board? Would you mind if I put this on my web site? Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 11:50:56 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Uploaded new file under "DIY Block"--if you have any questions be happy to answer. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24269|24264|2010-10-20 16:48:17|Doug Jackson|Re: Block Diagram and Photos|I'm confused. An oiled sleeve bearing? Is that like a bronze bushing? Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 3:12:10 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Doug: Thanks--looks great. I just remembered that I used an oiled sleeve bearing for the sheave. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Jackson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:59 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Thanks again Mark. I started a page for Block & Tackle and your contribution makes a great start. http://www.submarineboat.com/block_&_tackel.htm Peace Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 1:24:57 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Hi Doug: It was my design and build--had all 4 hot dipped galvanized. The plastic is not bread board--built them years ago and cannot remember I think it was he more expensive stuff--I have theleftover plastic if there is a way to tell. I do not know what the working load is but they have withstood several season permanent moorage on my 35 foot catamaran hulls--i used to use them for a bridle set up. Feel free to use them on your site--glad to help stopping re-inventing the wheel constantly. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Jackson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Thanks Mark. It's your design or your build? What is the approximate working load? Is that UHMW or a cutting board? Would you mind if I put this on my web site? Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 11:50:56 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Uploaded new file under "DIY Block"--if you have any questions be happy to answer. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24270|24264|2010-10-20 18:31:34|Mark Hamill|Re: Block Diagram and Photos|Yes--a bronze bushing-- I thought all those types of bushings were called "oil-lite" but I see that is the manufacturers name. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Jackson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:48 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos I'm confused. An oiled sleeve bearing? Is that like a bronze bushing? Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 3:12:10 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Doug: Thanks--looks great. I just remembered that I used an oiled sleeve bearing for the sheave. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Jackson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:59 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Thanks again Mark. I started a page for Block & Tackle and your contribution makes a great start. http://www.submarineboat.com/block_&_tackel.htm Peace Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 1:24:57 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Hi Doug: It was my design and build--had all 4 hot dipped galvanized. The plastic is not bread board--built them years ago and cannot remember I think it was he more expensive stuff--I have theleftover plastic if there is a way to tell. I do not know what the working load is but they have withstood several season permanent moorage on my 35 foot catamaran hulls--i used to use them for a bridle set up. Feel free to use them on your site--glad to help stopping re-inventing the wheel constantly. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Jackson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Thanks Mark. It's your design or your build? What is the approximate working load? Is that UHMW or a cutting board? Would you mind if I put this on my web site? Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 11:50:56 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos Uploaded new file under "DIY Block"--if you have any questions be happy to answer. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24271|24264|2010-10-20 19:18:22|Paul Wilson|Re: Block Diagram and Photos|FYI- Oilite bushings look simple but they are amazing things. Most people think they are just a bronze sleeve but they are 20% oil by volume and the pores in the metal allow the oil to come to the surface. They are great in high load applications and last one hell of a long time. They can be "re-oiled" by cleaning them and then putting them in an oil bath inside a vacuum chamber. The air bubbles out of the metal and the oil goes back in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oilite Cheers, Paul On 10/21/2010 11:31 AM, Mark Hamill wrote: > > Yes--a bronze bushing-- I thought all those types of bushings were > called "oil-lite" but I see that is the manufacturers name. MarkH > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Doug Jackson > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:48 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos > > I'm confused. An oiled sleeve bearing? Is that like a bronze bushing? > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > ________________________________ > From: Mark Hamill > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 3:12:10 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos > > Doug: Thanks--looks great. I just remembered that I used an oiled > sleeve bearing > for the sheave. MarkH > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Doug Jackson > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:59 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos > > Thanks again Mark. I started a page for Block & Tackle and your > contribution > makes a great start. http://www.submarineboat.com/block_&_tackel.htm > > > Peace > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > ________________________________ > From: Mark Hamill > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 1:24:57 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos > > Hi Doug: > It was my design and build--had all 4 hot dipped galvanized. > The plastic is not bread board--built them years ago and cannot > remember I think > > it was he more expensive stuff--I have theleftover plastic if there is > a way to > tell. > > I do not know what the working load is but they have withstood several > season > permanent moorage on my 35 foot catamaran hulls--i used to use them > for a bridle > > set up. > > Feel free to use them on your site--glad to help stopping re-inventing > the wheel > > constantly. > > MarkH > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Doug Jackson > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:18 AM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos > > Thanks Mark. > It's your design or your build? > What is the approximate working load? > Is that UHMW or a cutting board? > Would you mind if I put this on my web site? > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > ________________________________ > From: Mark Hamill > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 11:50:56 AM > Subject: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos > > Uploaded new file under "DIY Block"--if you have any questions be > happy to > answer. MarkH > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3208 - Release Date: 10/20/10 19:34:00 > | 24272|24264|2010-10-20 19:25:56|Mark Hamill|Re: Block Diagram and Photos|I also remember that one shouldn't file or cut them. MarkH > FYI- > > Oilite bushings look simple but they are amazing things. Most people > think they are just a bronze sleeve but they are 20% oil by volume and > the pores in the metal allow the oil to come to the surface. They are > great in high load applications and last one hell of a long time. They > can be "re-oiled" by cleaning them and then putting them in an oil bath > inside a vacuum chamber. The air bubbles out of the metal and the oil > goes back in. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oilite > > Cheers, Paul > > On 10/21/2010 11:31 AM, Mark Hamill wrote: >> >> Yes--a bronze bushing-- I thought all those types of bushings were >> called "oil-lite" but I see that is the manufacturers name. MarkH >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Doug Jackson >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:48 PM >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos >> >> I'm confused. An oiled sleeve bearing? Is that like a bronze bushing? >> >> Doug >> ArgonautJr.com >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Mark Hamill > >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 3:12:10 PM >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos >> >> Doug: Thanks--looks great. I just remembered that I used an oiled >> sleeve bearing >> for the sheave. MarkH >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Doug Jackson >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:59 PM >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos >> >> Thanks again Mark. I started a page for Block & Tackle and your >> contribution >> makes a great start. http://www.submarineboat.com/block_&_tackel.htm >> >> >> Peace >> Doug >> ArgonautJr.com >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Mark Hamill > >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 1:24:57 PM >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos >> >> Hi Doug: >> It was my design and build--had all 4 hot dipped galvanized. >> The plastic is not bread board--built them years ago and cannot >> remember I think >> >> it was he more expensive stuff--I have theleftover plastic if there is >> a way to >> tell. >> >> I do not know what the working load is but they have withstood several >> season >> permanent moorage on my 35 foot catamaran hulls--i used to use them >> for a bridle >> >> set up. >> >> Feel free to use them on your site--glad to help stopping re-inventing >> the wheel >> >> constantly. >> >> MarkH >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Doug Jackson >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:18 AM >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos >> >> Thanks Mark. >> It's your design or your build? >> What is the approximate working load? >> Is that UHMW or a cutting board? >> Would you mind if I put this on my web site? >> >> Doug >> ArgonautJr.com >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Mark Hamill > >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 11:50:56 AM >> Subject: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos >> >> Uploaded new file under "DIY Block"--if you have any questions be >> happy to >> answer. MarkH >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3208 - Release Date: 10/20/10 >> 19:34:00 >> > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24273|24264|2010-10-20 22:07:42|Doug Jackson|Re: Block Diagram and Photos|Thanks for the additional info Paul & Mark. I'll update the page. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 6:26:08 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos I also remember that one shouldn't file or cut them. MarkH > FYI- > > Oilite bushings look simple but they are amazing things. Most people > think they are just a bronze sleeve but they are 20% oil by volume and > the pores in the metal allow the oil to come to the surface. They are > great in high load applications and last one hell of a long time. They > can be "re-oiled" by cleaning them and then putting them in an oil bath > inside a vacuum chamber. The air bubbles out of the metal and the oil > goes back in. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oilite > > Cheers, Paul > > On 10/21/2010 11:31 AM, Mark Hamill wrote: >> >> Yes--a bronze bushing-- I thought all those types of bushings were >> called "oil-lite" but I see that is the manufacturers name. MarkH >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Doug Jackson >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:48 PM >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos >> >> I'm confused. An oiled sleeve bearing? Is that like a bronze bushing? >> >> Doug >> ArgonautJr.com >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Mark Hamill > >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 3:12:10 PM >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos >> >> Doug: Thanks--looks great. I just remembered that I used an oiled >> sleeve bearing >> for the sheave. MarkH >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Doug Jackson >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:59 PM >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos >> >> Thanks again Mark. I started a page for Block & Tackle and your >> contribution >> makes a great start. http://www.submarineboat.com/block_&_tackel.htm >> >> >> Peace >> Doug >> ArgonautJr.com >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Mark Hamill > >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 1:24:57 PM >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos >> >> Hi Doug: >> It was my design and build--had all 4 hot dipped galvanized. >> The plastic is not bread board--built them years ago and cannot >> remember I think >> >> it was he more expensive stuff--I have theleftover plastic if there is >> a way to >> tell. >> >> I do not know what the working load is but they have withstood several >> season >> permanent moorage on my 35 foot catamaran hulls--i used to use them >> for a bridle >> >> set up. >> >> Feel free to use them on your site--glad to help stopping re-inventing >> the wheel >> >> constantly. >> >> MarkH >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Doug Jackson >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:18 AM >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos >> >> Thanks Mark. >> It's your design or your build? >> What is the approximate working load? >> Is that UHMW or a cutting board? >> Would you mind if I put this on my web site? >> >> Doug >> ArgonautJr.com >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Mark Hamill > >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 11:50:56 AM >> Subject: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos >> >> Uploaded new file under "DIY Block"--if you have any questions be >> happy to >> answer. MarkH >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3208 - Release Date: 10/20/10 >> 19:34:00 >> > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > ------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24274|24244|2010-10-21 13:32:13|h|Re: surprise weight|yep mine came to 18,000 lbs nearly empty. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Carl Anderson wrote: > > Well that IS less than a Swain 36.... > I have not heard of any Swain 36 that was much under 20,000 pounds when > put on the scale..... > now I'm talking a FINISHED boat here not one that is still half exposed > foam.... > Silas Crosby has a finished displacement of 20,000 DarMi is near 20,000 > as well as Idefix IV being over 19,000.... > but then your mileage may vary..... > > Carl > sv-mom.com > > > On 10/18/2010 6:22 AM, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > > > > > I had my sailboat lifted on my trailer this past weekend and to my > > surprise the crane weighted my boat at 18,000 pounds. It is a 37 steel > > classic, I always tought that it would weight less than a Swain 36 > > because it is made of 1/8in thick plate, and have a smaller aft > > section. maybe it has more lead in the keel than what I tought... > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24275|24244|2010-10-21 13:37:50|h|Re: surprise weight|Ouch, I think that is called a nesting boat Brent. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > . They lined the entire hull with 1 inch plywood, then covered that with 1 inch teak, then began building the interior, in a similar fashion. | 24276|24264|2010-10-21 13:56:15|h|Re: Block Diagram and Photos|I believe the term is "sintered" which means made from small particles or something like that, so I figured these oil-lite bushing were made from bronze fillings pressed together or bonded in some way other than smelting. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > I also remember that one shouldn't file or cut them. MarkH > > > FYI- > > > > Oilite bushings look simple but they are amazing things. Most people > > think they are just a bronze sleeve but they are 20% oil by volume and > > the pores in the metal allow the oil to come to the surface. They are > > great in high load applications and last one hell of a long time. They > > can be "re-oiled" by cleaning them and then putting them in an oil bath > > inside a vacuum chamber. The air bubbles out of the metal and the oil > > goes back in. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oilite > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > On 10/21/2010 11:31 AM, Mark Hamill wrote: > >> > >> Yes--a bronze bushing-- I thought all those types of bushings were > >> called "oil-lite" but I see that is the manufacturers name. MarkH > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Doug Jackson > >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:48 PM > >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos > >> > >> I'm confused. An oiled sleeve bearing? Is that like a bronze bushing? > >> > >> Doug > >> ArgonautJr.com > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Mark Hamill > > >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > >> Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 3:12:10 PM > >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos > >> > >> Doug: Thanks--looks great. I just remembered that I used an oiled > >> sleeve bearing > >> for the sheave. MarkH > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Doug Jackson > >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:59 PM > >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos > >> > >> Thanks again Mark. I started a page for Block & Tackle and your > >> contribution > >> makes a great start. http://www.submarineboat.com/block_&_tackel.htm > >> > >> > >> Peace > >> Doug > >> ArgonautJr.com > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Mark Hamill > > >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > >> Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 1:24:57 PM > >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos > >> > >> Hi Doug: > >> It was my design and build--had all 4 hot dipped galvanized. > >> The plastic is not bread board--built them years ago and cannot > >> remember I think > >> > >> it was he more expensive stuff--I have theleftover plastic if there is > >> a way to > >> tell. > >> > >> I do not know what the working load is but they have withstood several > >> season > >> permanent moorage on my 35 foot catamaran hulls--i used to use them > >> for a bridle > >> > >> set up. > >> > >> Feel free to use them on your site--glad to help stopping re-inventing > >> the wheel > >> > >> constantly. > >> > >> MarkH > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Doug Jackson > >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:18 AM > >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos > >> > >> Thanks Mark. > >> It's your design or your build? > >> What is the approximate working load? > >> Is that UHMW or a cutting board? > >> Would you mind if I put this on my web site? > >> > >> Doug > >> ArgonautJr.com > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Mark Hamill > > >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > >> Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 11:50:56 AM > >> Subject: [origamiboats] Block Diagram and Photos > >> > >> Uploaded new file under "DIY Block"--if you have any questions be > >> happy to > >> answer. MarkH > >> > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >> > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >> > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >> > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >> > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >> > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >> > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > >> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3208 - Release Date: 10/20/10 > >> 19:34:00 > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > | 24277|24245|2010-10-21 23:25:56|mickeyolaf|Re: Rough weather|"A Voyage for Madmen", by Peter Nichols, published 2001, page 50, "he sailed into an unseasonable gale and got his first taste of the bilge-keeler's behavior in bad weather. Running before the wind, the self steering vane would not hold the boat on course. Steering by hand, Blyth couldn't do much better. The two shallow bilge keels lost their grip in the tumbling water near the surface and Dytiscus III began broaching uncontrollably; slewing sideays out of control with one wave, to be smashed into by the next. The boat became unmanageable. Nothing Blyth did seemed to help." page 94, "Unlike deeper-keeled boats, Dytiscus III did not track well with her shallow bilge keels without constant attention to her helm, whether from Blyth or the wind vane gear." ****************** It was this book read 10 years ago that convinced me to go with a single keel 36. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Excellent question. Every source I have read indicates, everything aspect of increased lateral resistance that makes a bilge-keel twin keel boat better when the boat heels, also provides a greater rolling moment toward a knock-down situation. On a single keel boat, the closer one gets to a knock-down, the hydrodynamic influence of the keel assisting in the knock down goes to zero. One also experiences a keel effectiveness penalty when moderately heeled though, over a twin-keeler. With a twin keeler, with keels at +/- 15 degrees from vertical, their hydrodynamic contribution to knockdown goes to zero at 105 degrees of roll, when the rail is firmly planted in the water and there is likely water on the coachhouse. So for the same wave, one expects the mast will slap the water harder with a twin keeler in the same situation. Will there be a wave eventually that knocks both down, all other things being equal ? Sure. Probably dozens of them in any really good storm. > > It seems all other geometrical effects of twin keels vs. heavy weather can be compensated > for, if the designer compensates for them, but to compensate, would > also give up some of the advantage of twin keels. > > I think the morale of the story is, prepare for a knockdown in other ways, or stay at home and stay out of heavy weather. > > I am thinking, an inside steering position, attention to essential systems, and how essential supplies are stowed, particularly fuels, and foods. Every bad but otherwise recoverable heavy weather story I have ever read has started with "fuel spill in the cabin" and "bulk of the food destroyed". Diesel loves rice and beans. I would focus on storage of essentials as the back up to a near-indestructible rig and boat. Because slight damage to boat or rig will have one relying more heavily on fuel or food. > > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24278|24245|2010-10-22 06:11:17|jason ball|Re: Rough weather|this is also a question that i would like to be answered. are bilge keelers in general bad at running down wind, or  was that a rudder problem on dytiscus. this was always a concern of mine.thanks mickey olaf. --- On Fri, 22/10/10, mickeyolaf wrote: From: mickeyolaf Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 4:25   "A Voyage for Madmen", by Peter Nichols, published 2001, page 50, "he sailed into an unseasonable gale and got his first taste of the bilge-keeler's behavior in bad weather. Running before the wind, the self steering vane would not hold the boat on course. Steering by hand, Blyth couldn't do much better. The two shallow bilge keels lost their grip in the tumbling water near the surface and Dytiscus III began broaching uncontrollably; slewing sideays out of control with one wave, to be smashed into by the next. The boat became unmanageable. Nothing Blyth did seemed to help." page 94, "Unlike deeper-keeled boats, Dytiscus III did not track well with her shallow bilge keels without constant attention to her helm, whether from Blyth or the wind vane gear." ****************** It was this book read 10 years ago that convinced me to go with a single keel 36. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Excellent question. Every source I have read indicates, everything aspect of increased lateral resistance that makes a bilge-keel twin keel boat better when the boat heels, also provides a greater rolling moment toward a knock-down situation. On a single keel boat, the closer one gets to a knock-down, the hydrodynamic influence of the keel assisting in the knock down goes to zero. One also experiences a keel effectiveness penalty when moderately heeled though, over a twin-keeler. With a twin keeler, with keels at +/- 15 degrees from vertical, their hydrodynamic contribution to knockdown goes to zero at 105 degrees of roll, when the rail is firmly planted in the water and there is likely water on the coachhouse. So for the same wave, one expects the mast will slap the water harder with a twin keeler in the same situation. Will there be a wave eventually that knocks both down, all other things being equal ? Sure. Probably dozens of them in any really good storm. > > It seems all other geometrical effects of twin keels vs. heavy weather can be compensated > for, if the designer compensates for them, but to compensate, would > also give up some of the advantage of twin keels. > > I think the morale of the story is, prepare for a knockdown in other ways, or stay at home and stay out of heavy weather. > > I am thinking, an inside steering position, attention to essential systems, and how essential supplies are stowed, particularly fuels, and foods. Every bad but otherwise recoverable heavy weather story I have ever read has started with "fuel spill in the cabin" and "bulk of the food destroyed". Diesel loves rice and beans. I would focus on storage of essentials as the back up to a near-indestructible rig and boat. Because slight damage to boat or rig will have one relying more heavily on fuel or food. > > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24279|24245|2010-10-22 09:17:04|Matt Malone|Re: Rough weather|>"A Voyage for Madmen", by Peter Nichols, published 2001, Excellent book. Highly recommend it. I have read it 3 times now. I have my copy on my boat so I cannot quote pages. The part you refer to I think it Sir Chay Blyth's twin keel bilge keeler, that I recall the book shows a picture of, beached on a ramp. Its shape does have a superficial resemblance to a Brent-boat. In the same book, Nichols later highlights the different ways I believe Bernard Moitessier and Sir Robin Knox-Johnson ran-off downwind in heavy weather and appears to conclude, there are different strategies for different boats and no right answer. The steel, shoal-draft, twin, bilge keel gives the ability to beach in any reasonably protected area. I imagine, since one is not careening against the bilge or chine on one side, that a twin keel boat would be more forgiving of a slightly rougher bottom, and less calm conditions. After all, if careening to scrape and re-paint the bilge on the "up" side should damage the surface on the other side there is no point. With a twin-keel boat, one might bolt their zincs to the bottom of the keels like shoes, so that beaching leaves the boat standing on its zincs, not paint, and any movement and abrasion would just freshen the surface on the zincs. One has to evaluate how important that convenience of beaching is to them. The other extreme is, one might want to build something more in the shape of an Open racing boat. I am certain the orgami methods would work with modifications (flatter curves are not as geometrically stiff so I suspect some ribs or stringers and truss framing might be useful). One could make the single keel as deep as one wanted to cause the boat to be self-righting. Instead of making a canting keel as many Open racers have, one could make a fixed angle (for more easily robust mechanical integration at the hull-keel connection), but make a retractable/folding/telescoping keel for even deeper draft, and better righting abilities in the deep ocean. One is free to make heavy, robust mechanisms in a keel because heavy is what the keel is for. If one is starting with steel and a welder, just about anything is possible. The flatter-bottom, wide-beam racers also have a lot of cabin area below where the height is more usable -- less wedge-like spaces with inadequate height / headroom. They also have a lot of deck room -- not that one would be using it a lot in heavier weather areas. Maybe Brent has an orgami plan already for such a boat. Between those is the single fixed keel boat of moderate draft that most people have. It is a different compromise. One that is properly shaped, with no stretched proportions, following the centuries of experience in hull-shape, will lie-ahull with little intervention or control and be as robust as its material construction allows. (Meaning, it is not susceptible to geometry-related failures like buckling.) A twin-keeler might require more active intervention requiring forethought, tactical planning and equipment, for the same conditions. It may also be that, as the Nichols book points out, it is a rougher ride -- Sir Chay Blyth quit before getting into any big trouble as far as I recall. With greater motion, one needs a stronger stomach, and stronger rig. The later is easier to do with steel, guaranteeing the boat's integrity. Sir Chay Blyth was in a fibreglass boat the first time as I recall. The second time, his boat was sponsored by British Steel. As Sir Chat Blyth was the first man to sail solo, the wrong way around, in that steel boat, I think we can be certain it was probably not his stomach that caused him to quit the first time, but concern for his fibreglass boat. We are not all Sir Chay Blyth though. So, specifically, the only important thing is the voice of experience with this design in heavy weather: Brent said a drogue has been sufficient for him. Matt >From: mickeyolaf >... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24280|24245|2010-10-22 10:41:28|Aaron Williams|Re: Rough weather| Does Nichols list any construction details of  Dytiscus ?   ________________________________ From: jason ball To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 2:11:08 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather   this is also a question that i would like to be answered. are bilge keelers in general bad at running down wind, or  was that a rudder problem on dytiscus. this was always a concern of mine.thanks mickey olaf. --- On Fri, 22/10/10, mickeyolaf wrote: From: mickeyolaf Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 4:25   "A Voyage for Madmen", by Peter Nichols, published 2001, page 50, "he sailed into an unseasonable gale and got his first taste of the bilge-keeler's behavior in bad weather. Running before the wind, the self steering vane would not hold the boat on course. Steering by hand, Blyth couldn't do much better. The two shallow bilge keels lost their grip in the tumbling water near the surface and Dytiscus III began broaching uncontrollably; slewing sideays out of control with one wave, to be smashed into by the next. The boat became unmanageable. Nothing Blyth did seemed to help." page 94, "Unlike deeper-keeled boats, Dytiscus III did not track well with her shallow bilge keels without constant attention to her helm, whether from Blyth or the wind vane gear." ****************** It was this book read 10 years ago that convinced me to go with a single keel 36. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Excellent question. Every source I have read indicates, everything aspect of >increased lateral resistance that makes a bilge-keel twin keel boat better when >the boat heels, also provides a greater rolling moment toward a knock-down >situation. On a single keel boat, the closer one gets to a knock-down, the >hydrodynamic influence of the keel assisting in the knock down goes to zero. One >also experiences a keel effectiveness penalty when moderately heeled though, >over a twin-keeler. With a twin keeler, with keels at +/- 15 degrees from >vertical, their hydrodynamic contribution to knockdown goes to zero at 105 >degrees of roll, when the rail is firmly planted in the water and there is >likely water on the coachhouse. So for the same wave, one expects the mast will >slap the water harder with a twin keeler in the same situation. Will there be a >wave eventually that knocks both down, all other things being equal ? Sure. >Probably dozens of them in any really good storm. > > It seems all other geometrical effects of twin keels vs. heavy weather can be >compensated > for, if the designer compensates for them, but to compensate, would > also give up some of the advantage of twin keels. > > I think the morale of the story is, prepare for a knockdown in other ways, or >stay at home and stay out of heavy weather. > > > I am thinking, an inside steering position, attention to essential systems, and >how essential supplies are stowed, particularly fuels, and foods. Every bad but >otherwise recoverable heavy weather story I have ever read has started with >"fuel spill in the cabin" and "bulk of the food destroyed". Diesel loves rice >and beans. I would focus on storage of essentials as the back up to a >near-indestructible rig and boat. Because slight damage to boat or rig will have >one relying more heavily on fuel or food. > > > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24281|24245|2010-10-22 11:30:31|James Pronk|Re: Rough weather|--- On Fri, 10/22/10, Matt Malone wrote: Chay Blyth was also in a unproven production boat that was not beefed up for offshore sailing if I recall right. It was most likely over loaded for the design as well, with all the stores for about 10 months at sea? What was the make of the boat that he was sailing Was there another boat of the same design or similar that dropped out earlier because the stays were pulling out of the deck? I am about to start on the bilge keels for my 36' and I think I am making the right decision and doing it for the right reasons. What is the saying? "A gentleman never sails to windward?  No one has ever accused me of being a gentleman. James      From: Matt Malone Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Friday, October 22, 2010, 9:16 AM   >"A Voyage for Madmen", by Peter Nichols, published 2001, [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24283|24245|2010-10-22 13:44:28|Matt Malone|Re: Rough weather|>Chay Blyth was also in a unproven production boat that was not beefed up for >offshore sailing if I recall right. It was most likely over loaded for the design as well, >with all the stores for about 10 months at sea? >What was the make of the boat that he was sailing. >Was there another boat of the same design or similar that dropped out earlier >because the stays were pulling out of the deck? >... >James Yes, I believe Ridgeway had the same boat and may have been the one suffering that problem... Might have been Blyth with the problem. Neither was dismasted or anything as I recall, both made it in safe after dropping out. Nichols also pulls not punches in painting Sir Chay Blyth's lack of specific experience as a sailor relative to the others. Instead of taking years to learn how to sail in a variety of conditions, Blyth shipped aboard instructional books on how to sail, and then the next day, set off to sail around the world. My favourite quote that Nichol's shares is I believe an entry in Sir Chay Blyth's log saying something to the effect that his predicament is like being in hell with an instruction manual. Clearly he had the discipline and wits about him to survive, and make better choices for his second round-the-world voyage. I imagine there still are people who set out that way. Read "Voyage of the Northern Magic" another good book, however, another bad example of going out with skills and experience yes, but not specific experience. At least they chose a steel boat at the start, and if I recall correctly, ended up needing it to be steel somewhere around Australia. There will always be new things out there, and that is why sailing is interesting, but it seems prudent to keep the number of new things on any particular voyage small, and build on each. I would not set out around the world, new to blue-water sailing, any more than with a new rig, or a new engine, or new crew member -- each would get a good long sea trial so it was not so new anymore before adding some other aspect that was new. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24284|24282|2010-10-22 13:54:39|Matt Malone|Re: Heavy helm on steel Colin Archer|>To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >From: ian.jean@... >Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:30:31 -0700 >Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Heavy helm on steel Colin Archer > >My 120 pound wife has difficulty with a heavy helm, requires much >effort on the tiller even in 30 knots with a reefed main and small jib. > >Boat is steel, Colin Archer design, double ender, > >37 feet 22,000 pounds with rudder hung off the long keel. > >Rudder is NOT transom hung. > >Any ideas as to lightening the force would be appreciated! > >Ian in Deep Bay > OK, is it heavy to make it go upwind ? (excessive weather helm)? Or is it heavy to make it go downwind? Or heavy to travel on a beam reach? Or always heavy ? Rudders pivoted on a steep angle, as some keel-hung rudders are, there is some component of upward movement whenever the rudder is moved off-center. (Think of being under the boat on the hard and pushing the rudder to the side by hand, and letting go. It will pivot back to helm-center just because of weight.) Therefore the person at the helm is fighting gravity to steer. It helps stabilize the boat, but it makes the controls heavier. Please avoid solutions that involve more of her body mass getting in the way of the rudder, like leaning on it with her behind. A good wave and the rudder might buck and catapult her out of the boat. The goal has to be to lighten the control so she can use just an arm to steer. Then if the rudder bucks, it pushes her arm back, not her out of the boat. Your problem could be a combination of these. More information is needed. Matt ----- Original Message ----- From: Aaron Williams To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 7:41 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather Does Nichols list any construction details of Dytiscus ? ________________________________ From: jason ball To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 2:11:08 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather this is also a question that i would like to be answered. are bilge keelers in general bad at running down wind, or was that a rudder problem on dytiscus. this was always a concern of mine.thanks mickey olaf. --- On Fri, 22/10/10, mickeyolaf wrote: From: mickeyolaf Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 4:25 "A Voyage for Madmen", by Peter Nichols, published 2001, page 50, "he sailed into an unseasonable gale and got his first taste of the bilge-keeler's behavior in bad weather. Running before the wind, the self steering vane would not hold the boat on course. Steering by hand, Blyth couldn't do much better. The two shallow bilge keels lost their grip in the tumbling water near the surface and Dytiscus III began broaching uncontrollably; slewing sideays out of control with one wave, to be smashed into by the next. The boat became unmanageable. Nothing Blyth did seemed to help." page 94, "Unlike deeper-keeled boats, Dytiscus III did not track well with her shallow bilge keels without constant attention to her helm, whether from Blyth or the wind vane gear." ****************** It was this book read 10 years ago that convinced me to go with a single keel 36. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Excellent question. Every source I have read indicates, everything aspect of >increased lateral resistance that makes a bilge-keel twin keel boat better when >the boat heels, also provides a greater rolling moment toward a knock-down >situation. On a single keel boat, the closer one gets to a knock-down, the >hydrodynamic influence of the keel assisting in the knock down goes to zero. One >also experiences a keel effectiveness penalty when moderately heeled though, >over a twin-keeler. With a twin keeler, with keels at +/- 15 degrees from >vertical, their hydrodynamic contribution to knockdown goes to zero at 105 >degrees of roll, when the rail is firmly planted in the water and there is >likely water on the coachhouse. So for the same wave, one expects the mast will >slap the water harder with a twin keeler in the same situation. Will there be a >wave eventually that knocks both down, all other things being equal ? Sure. >Probably dozens of them in any really good storm. > > It seems all other geometrical effects of twin keels vs. heavy weather can be >compensated > for, if the designer compensates for them, but to compensate, would > also give up some of the advantage of twin keels. > > I think the morale of the story is, prepare for a knockdown in other ways, or >stay at home and stay out of heavy weather. > > > I am thinking, an inside steering position, attention to essential systems, and >how essential supplies are stowed, particularly fuels, and foods. Every bad but >otherwise recoverable heavy weather story I have ever read has started with >"fuel spill in the cabin" and "bulk of the food destroyed". Diesel loves rice >and beans. I would focus on storage of essentials as the back up to a >near-indestructible rig and boat. Because slight damage to boat or rig will have >one relying more heavily on fuel or food. > > > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24285|24245|2010-10-22 16:24:24|jason ball|Re: Rough weather|chay blyth rowed across the atlantic with john ridgeway a year or two before the golden globe race, john was his captain and chay was a sergeant, both parachute regiment.they rowed from cape cod to ireland.they also encountered the tail end of a hurricane where two other men were killed, i wont go on, but this also is a good book called "a fighting chance",so altho blyth only had a bit of sailing experience. by the time he had "been rolled 4 times in an hour" and " i thought all this was part of the sailing game",he had been at sea for about 70 days single handed in a sailing boat and more than that in an open flat bottomed plywood dory. 3 oceans later the newspapers were still saying this man was a novice....also the bilge keeler was an early westerly  heavy lay up of fibreglass but was marketed as a weekend family cruiser, after leavin the boat in south africa for a while he sailed it back to uk with his wife... some fella chay.. --- On Fri, 22/10/10, Matt Malone wrote: From: Matt Malone Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 14:16   >"A Voyage for Madmen", by Peter Nichols, published 2001, Excellent book. Highly recommend it. I have read it 3 times now. I have my copy on my boat so I cannot quote pages. The part you refer to I think it Sir Chay Blyth's twin keel bilge keeler, that I recall the book shows a picture of, beached on a ramp. Its shape does have a superficial resemblance to a Brent-boat. In the same book, Nichols later highlights the different ways I believe Bernard Moitessier and Sir Robin Knox-Johnson ran-off downwind in heavy weather and appears to conclude, there are different strategies for different boats and no right answer. The steel, shoal-draft, twin, bilge keel gives the ability to beach in any reasonably protected area. I imagine, since one is not careening against the bilge or chine on one side, that a twin keel boat would be more forgiving of a slightly rougher bottom, and less calm conditions. After all, if careening to scrape and re-paint the bilge on the "up" side should damage the surface on the other side there is no point. With a twin-keel boat, one might bolt their zincs to the bottom of the keels like shoes, so that beaching leaves the boat standing on its zincs, not paint, and any movement and abrasion would just freshen the surface on the zincs. One has to evaluate how important that convenience of beaching is to them. The other extreme is, one might want to build something more in the shape of an Open racing boat. I am certain the orgami methods would work with modifications (flatter curves are not as geometrically stiff so I suspect some ribs or stringers and truss framing might be useful). One could make the single keel as deep as one wanted to cause the boat to be self-righting. Instead of making a canting keel as many Open racers have, one could make a fixed angle (for more easily robust mechanical integration at the hull-keel connection), but make a retractable/folding/telescoping keel for even deeper draft, and better righting abilities in the deep ocean. One is free to make heavy, robust mechanisms in a keel because heavy is what the keel is for. If one is starting with steel and a welder, just about anything is possible. The flatter-bottom, wide-beam racers also have a lot of cabin area below where the height is more usable -- less wedge-like spaces with inadequate height / headroom. They also have a lot of deck room -- not that one would be using it a lot in heavier weather areas. Maybe Brent has an orgami plan already for such a boat. Between those is the single fixed keel boat of moderate draft that most people have. It is a different compromise. One that is properly shaped, with no stretched proportions, following the centuries of experience in hull-shape, will lie-ahull with little intervention or control and be as robust as its material construction allows. (Meaning, it is not susceptible to geometry-related failures like buckling.) A twin-keeler might require more active intervention requiring forethought, tactical planning and equipment, for the same conditions. It may also be that, as the Nichols book points out, it is a rougher ride -- Sir Chay Blyth quit before getting into any big trouble as far as I recall. With greater motion, one needs a stronger stomach, and stronger rig. The later is easier to do with steel, guaranteeing the boat's integrity. Sir Chay Blyth was in a fibreglass boat the first time as I recall. The second time, his boat was sponsored by British Steel. As Sir Chat Blyth was the first man to sail solo, the wrong way around, in that steel boat, I think we can be certain it was probably not his stomach that caused him to quit the first time, but concern for his fibreglass boat. We are not all Sir Chay Blyth though. So, specifically, the only important thing is the voice of experience with this design in heavy weather: Brent said a drogue has been sufficient for him. Matt >From: mickeyolaf >... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24286|24245|2010-10-22 17:40:17|A Ellzey|Re: Rough weather|Trialing a drogue might alleviate the broaching problem. Of course, no two boats handle exactly alike, even those with similar designs. A Brent boat might not have the same problem as the one described in "Voyage of a Madman". I would be curious to know if anyone has tried heaving to in really severe weather with a Brent twin keeler. You never know when this information might come in handy. ________________________________ From: jason ball To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 4:24:15 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather   chay blyth rowed across the atlantic with john ridgeway a year or two before the golden globe race, john was his captain and chay was a sergeant, both parachute regiment.they rowed from cape cod to ireland.they also encountered the tail end of a hurricane where two other men were killed, i wont go on, but this also is a good book called "a fighting chance",so altho blyth only had a bit of sailing experience. by the time he had "been rolled 4 times in an hour" and " i thought all this was part of the sailing game",he had been at sea for about 70 days single handed in a sailing boat and more than that in an open flat bottomed plywood dory. 3 oceans later the newspapers were still saying this man was a novice....also the bilge keeler was an early westerly  heavy lay up of fibreglass but was marketed as a weekend family cruiser, after leavin the boat in south africa for a while he sailed it back to uk with his wife... some fella chay.. --- On Fri, 22/10/10, Matt Malone wrote: From: Matt Malone Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 14:16   >"A Voyage for Madmen", by Peter Nichols, published 2001, Excellent book. Highly recommend it. I have read it 3 times now. I have my copy on my boat so I cannot quote pages. The part you refer to I think it Sir Chay Blyth's twin keel bilge keeler, that I recall the book shows a picture of, beached on a ramp. Its shape does have a superficial resemblance to a Brent-boat. In the same book, Nichols later highlights the different ways I believe Bernard Moitessier and Sir Robin Knox-Johnson ran-off downwind in heavy weather and appears to conclude, there are different strategies for different boats and no right answer. The steel, shoal-draft, twin, bilge keel gives the ability to beach in any reasonably protected area. I imagine, since one is not careening against the bilge or chine on one side, that a twin keel boat would be more forgiving of a slightly rougher bottom, and less calm conditions. After all, if careening to scrape and re-paint the bilge on the "up" side should damage the surface on the other side there is no point. With a twin-keel boat, one might bolt their zincs to the bottom of the keels like shoes, so that beaching leaves the boat standing on its zincs, not paint, and any movement and abrasion would just freshen the surface on the zincs. One has to evaluate how important that convenience of beaching is to them. The other extreme is, one might want to build something more in the shape of an Open racing boat. I am certain the orgami methods would work with modifications (flatter curves are not as geometrically stiff so I suspect some ribs or stringers and truss framing might be useful). One could make the single keel as deep as one wanted to cause the boat to be self-righting. Instead of making a canting keel as many Open racers have, one could make a fixed angle (for more easily robust mechanical integration at the hull-keel connection), but make a retractable/folding/telescoping keel for even deeper draft, and better righting abilities in the deep ocean. One is free to make heavy, robust mechanisms in a keel because heavy is what the keel is for. If one is starting with steel and a welder, just about anything is possible. The flatter-bottom, wide-beam racers also have a lot of cabin area below where the height is more usable -- less wedge-like spaces with inadequate height / headroom. They also have a lot of deck room -- not that one would be using it a lot in heavier weather areas. Maybe Brent has an orgami plan already for such a boat. Between those is the single fixed keel boat of moderate draft that most people have. It is a different compromise. One that is properly shaped, with no stretched proportions, following the centuries of experience in hull-shape, will lie-ahull with little intervention or control and be as robust as its material construction allows. (Meaning, it is not susceptible to geometry-related failures like buckling.) A twin-keeler might require more active intervention requiring forethought, tactical planning and equipment, for the same conditions. It may also be that, as the Nichols book points out, it is a rougher ride -- Sir Chay Blyth quit before getting into any big trouble as far as I recall. With greater motion, one needs a stronger stomach, and stronger rig. The later is easier to do with steel, guaranteeing the boat's integrity. Sir Chay Blyth was in a fibreglass boat the first time as I recall. The second time, his boat was sponsored by British Steel. As Sir Chat Blyth was the first man to sail solo, the wrong way around, in that steel boat, I think we can be certain it was probably not his stomach that caused him to quit the first time, but concern for his fibreglass boat. We are not all Sir Chay Blyth though. So, specifically, the only important thing is the voice of experience with this design in heavy weather: Brent said a drogue has been sufficient for him. Matt >From: mickeyolaf >... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24287|24245|2010-10-22 18:37:32|wild_explorer|Re: Rough weather|All these "Sirs" are not necessary had good boats. I am reading a book about one, who circles the globe. Boat was specially designed for him and man had experience in Trans Atlantic races. But... The boat he finally got, was poorly designed, had bad hydrostatics and balance, etc. It had long keel, but did it make the difference? No! You cannot judge the boat just by what keel it has. It is overall design you should worry about. So far, Brent's design looks very good. I would like to hear more reviews of Brent's boats sailing characteristics/pro/cons from first hands - OWNERS. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, A Ellzey wrote: > Brent boat might > not have the same problem as the one described in "Voyage of a Madman". I would > be curious to know if anyone has tried heaving to in really severe weather with > a Brent twin keeler. You never know when this information might come in handy. > | 24288|24245|2010-10-22 19:38:14|brentswain38|Re: Rough weather|How well was the hull balanced. Mine tracks well, as the hull is well balanced. No complaints . She tracks far better than my last boat, which had a full length keel and unbalanced hull. Last time I sailed south from BC ,I was south of Hawaii in 14 days, running downwind in a strong NW which turned into a strong NE trade wind. She tracked far better than any other boat I've sailed --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mickeyolaf" wrote: > > "A Voyage for Madmen", by Peter Nichols, published 2001, > page 50, > "he sailed into an unseasonable gale and got his first taste of the bilge-keeler's behavior in bad weather. Running before the wind, the self steering vane would not hold the boat on course. Steering by hand, Blyth couldn't do much better. The two shallow bilge keels lost their grip in the tumbling water near the surface and Dytiscus III began broaching uncontrollably; slewing sideays out of control with one wave, to be smashed into by the next. The boat became unmanageable. Nothing Blyth did seemed to help." > > page 94, > "Unlike deeper-keeled boats, Dytiscus III did not track well with her shallow bilge keels without constant attention to her helm, whether from Blyth or the wind vane gear." > ****************** > It was this book read 10 years ago that convinced me to go with a single keel 36. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > Excellent question. Every source I have read indicates, everything aspect of increased lateral resistance that makes a bilge-keel twin keel boat better when the boat heels, also provides a greater rolling moment toward a knock-down situation. On a single keel boat, the closer one gets to a knock-down, the hydrodynamic influence of the keel assisting in the knock down goes to zero. One also experiences a keel effectiveness penalty when moderately heeled though, over a twin-keeler. With a twin keeler, with keels at +/- 15 degrees from vertical, their hydrodynamic contribution to knockdown goes to zero at 105 degrees of roll, when the rail is firmly planted in the water and there is likely water on the coachhouse. So for the same wave, one expects the mast will slap the water harder with a twin keeler in the same situation. Will there be a wave eventually that knocks both down, all other things being equal ? Sure. Probably dozens of them in any really good storm. > > > > It seems all other geometrical effects of twin keels vs. heavy weather can be compensated > > for, if the designer compensates for them, but to compensate, would > > also give up some of the advantage of twin keels. > > > > I think the morale of the story is, prepare for a knockdown in other ways, or stay at home and stay out of heavy weather. > > > > I am thinking, an inside steering position, attention to essential systems, and how essential supplies are stowed, particularly fuels, and foods. Every bad but otherwise recoverable heavy weather story I have ever read has started with "fuel spill in the cabin" and "bulk of the food destroyed". Diesel loves rice and beans. I would focus on storage of essentials as the back up to a near-indestructible rig and boat. Because slight damage to boat or rig will have one relying more heavily on fuel or food. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 24289|24245|2010-10-22 19:40:26|h|Re: Rough weather|I just sailed down Trincomali Channel down wind, wing and wing in light wind, with the current at the start, and against later in the night, wind vane steering the whole way. Made up a running pole out of a 8ft 2x2 I had, tied it to my rail and to the clew. Other than the jib flopping around from time to time I didn't have any problems, main boom was tied down too. Seems to work dead downwind or with the wind slightly off to the quarter, it was nice left Tsehum Harbour at about 1pm once the fog cleared and made it to the east entrance of Pollier Pass about 9 or 10pm maybe about 3knots average speed, full moon, warm south easter and I imagine if the vane can keep the course in winds like that it'll keep it's course in stronger winds. I took a video off the running pole setup for kicks I'll put it up on youtube when I get a chance, oh I'll just do it now... Steve also uploaded a video of the vane working with a sailbag on top of it instead of the coroplast I have on it now. There: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SrS5tVp_0I --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, jason ball wrote: > > this is also a question that i would like to be answered. are bilge keelers in general bad at running down wind, or  was that a rudder problem on dytiscus. this was always a concern of mine.thanks mickey olaf. > > --- On Fri, 22/10/10, mickeyolaf wrote: > > > From: mickeyolaf > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 4:25 > > >   > > > > "A Voyage for Madmen", by Peter Nichols, published 2001, > page 50, > "he sailed into an unseasonable gale and got his first taste of the bilge-keeler's behavior in bad weather. Running before the wind, the self steering vane would not hold the boat on course. Steering by hand, Blyth couldn't do much better. The two shallow bilge keels lost their grip in the tumbling water near the surface and Dytiscus III began broaching uncontrollably; slewing sideays out of control with one wave, to be smashed into by the next. The boat became unmanageable. Nothing Blyth did seemed to help." > > page 94, > "Unlike deeper-keeled boats, Dytiscus III did not track well with her shallow bilge keels without constant attention to her helm, whether from Blyth or the wind vane gear." > ****************** > It was this book read 10 years ago that convinced me to go with a single keel 36. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > Excellent question. Every source I have read indicates, everything aspect of increased lateral resistance that makes a bilge-keel twin keel boat better when the boat heels, also provides a greater rolling moment toward a knock-down situation. On a single keel boat, the closer one gets to a knock-down, the hydrodynamic influence of the keel assisting in the knock down goes to zero. One also experiences a keel effectiveness penalty when moderately heeled though, over a twin-keeler. With a twin keeler, with keels at +/- 15 degrees from vertical, their hydrodynamic contribution to knockdown goes to zero at 105 degrees of roll, when the rail is firmly planted in the water and there is likely water on the coachhouse. So for the same wave, one expects the mast will slap the water harder with a twin keeler in the same situation. Will there be a wave eventually that knocks both down, all other things being equal ? Sure. Probably dozens of them in any really > good storm. > > > > It seems all other geometrical effects of twin keels vs. heavy weather can be compensated > > for, if the designer compensates for them, but to compensate, would > > also give up some of the advantage of twin keels. > > > > I think the morale of the story is, prepare for a knockdown in other ways, or stay at home and stay out of heavy weather. > > > > I am thinking, an inside steering position, attention to essential systems, and how essential supplies are stowed, particularly fuels, and foods. Every bad but otherwise recoverable heavy weather story I have ever read has started with "fuel spill in the cabin" and "bulk of the food destroyed". Diesel loves rice and beans. I would focus on storage of essentials as the back up to a near-indestructible rig and boat. Because slight damage to boat or rig will have one relying more heavily on fuel or food. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24290|24282|2010-10-22 19:42:47|brentswain38|Re: Heavy helm on steel Colin Archer|Are you living aboard in Deep Bay? Perhaps you could arrange trim tab on the rudder, which could crank a bit of the weather helm out. A longer bowsprit, moving the mast forward, eliminating the roach on the main, less rake in the mast, are all options. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Campbell" wrote: > > My 120 pound wife has difficulty with a heavy helm, requires much effort on the tiller even in 30 knots with a reefed main and small jib. > > Boat is steel, Colin Archer design, double ender, > > 37 feet 22,000 pounds with rudder hung off the long keel. > > Rudder is NOT transom hung. > > Any ideas as to lightening the force would be appreciated! > > > Ian in Deep Bay > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Aaron Williams > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 7:41 AM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather > > > > Does Nichols list any construction details of Dytiscus ? > > > > ________________________________ > From: jason ball > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 2:11:08 AM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather > > > this is also a question that i would like to be answered. are bilge keelers in > general bad at running down wind, or was that a rudder problem on dytiscus. > this was always a concern of mine.thanks mickey olaf. > > --- On Fri, 22/10/10, mickeyolaf wrote: > > From: mickeyolaf > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 4:25 > > > > "A Voyage for Madmen", by Peter Nichols, published 2001, > page 50, > "he sailed into an unseasonable gale and got his first taste of the > bilge-keeler's behavior in bad weather. Running before the wind, the self > steering vane would not hold the boat on course. Steering by hand, Blyth > couldn't do much better. The two shallow bilge keels lost their grip in the > tumbling water near the surface and Dytiscus III began broaching uncontrollably; > slewing sideays out of control with one wave, to be smashed into by the next. > The boat became unmanageable. Nothing Blyth did seemed to help." > > page 94, > "Unlike deeper-keeled boats, Dytiscus III did not track well with her shallow > bilge keels without constant attention to her helm, whether from Blyth or the > wind vane gear." > ****************** > It was this book read 10 years ago that convinced me to go with a single keel > 36. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > Excellent question. Every source I have read indicates, everything aspect of > >increased lateral resistance that makes a bilge-keel twin keel boat better when > >the boat heels, also provides a greater rolling moment toward a knock-down > >situation. On a single keel boat, the closer one gets to a knock-down, the > >hydrodynamic influence of the keel assisting in the knock down goes to zero. One > >also experiences a keel effectiveness penalty when moderately heeled though, > >over a twin-keeler. With a twin keeler, with keels at +/- 15 degrees from > >vertical, their hydrodynamic contribution to knockdown goes to zero at 105 > >degrees of roll, when the rail is firmly planted in the water and there is > >likely water on the coachhouse. So for the same wave, one expects the mast will > >slap the water harder with a twin keeler in the same situation. Will there be a > >wave eventually that knocks both down, all other things being equal ? Sure. > >Probably dozens of them in any really > good storm. > > > > It seems all other geometrical effects of twin keels vs. heavy weather can be > >compensated > > for, if the designer compensates for them, but to compensate, would > > also give up some of the advantage of twin keels. > > > > I think the morale of the story is, prepare for a knockdown in other ways, or > >stay at home and stay out of heavy weather. > > > > > > I am thinking, an inside steering position, attention to essential systems, and > >how essential supplies are stowed, particularly fuels, and foods. Every bad but > >otherwise recoverable heavy weather story I have ever read has started with > >"fuel spill in the cabin" and "bulk of the food destroyed". Diesel loves rice > >and beans. I would focus on storage of essentials as the back up to a > >near-indestructible rig and boat. Because slight damage to boat or rig will have > >one relying more heavily on fuel or food. > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24291|24282|2010-10-22 19:51:21|h|Re: Heavy helm on steel Colin Archer|Ha, yeah balance the sails, I have that problem ALL the time though there has been some improvement since last year.... I'll swing by and say hi on my way up to Comox in a few weeks. > > >My 120 pound wife has difficulty with a heavy helm, requires > much > >effort on the tiller even in 30 knots with a reefed main and small > jib. > | 24292|24245|2010-10-22 19:52:20|brentswain38|Re: Rough weather|I have hove to with a deep reefed main backed to windward and no headsail, with the helm lashed to leeward. Very comfortable. In more extreme conditions, I have used a drogue of the stern quarter. I feel this arrangement is bulletproof, and as comfortable as one can expect in a gale at sea ,once I have put the foam earplugs in to reduce the noise stress level. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, A Ellzey wrote: > > Trialing a drogue might alleviate the broaching problem. Of course, no two > boats handle exactly alike, even those with similar designs. A Brent boat might > not have the same problem as the one described in "Voyage of a Madman". I would > be curious to know if anyone has tried heaving to in really severe weather with > a Brent twin keeler. You never know when this information might come in handy. > > > ________________________________ > From: jason ball > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 4:24:15 PM > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather > >   > chay blyth rowed across the atlantic with john ridgeway a year or two before the > golden globe race, john was his captain and chay was a sergeant, both parachute > regiment.they rowed from cape cod to ireland.they also encountered the tail end > of a hurricane where two other men were killed, i wont go on, but this also is a > good book called "a fighting chance",so altho blyth only had a bit of sailing > experience. by the time he had "been rolled 4 times in an hour" and " i thought > all this was part of the sailing game",he had been at sea for about 70 days > single handed in a sailing boat and more than that in an open flat bottomed > plywood dory. 3 oceans later the newspapers were still saying this man was a > novice....also the bilge keeler was an early westerly  heavy lay up of > fibreglass but was marketed as a weekend family cruiser, after leavin the boat > in south africa for a while he sailed it back to uk with his wife... some fella > chay.. > > --- On Fri, 22/10/10, Matt Malone wrote: > > From: Matt Malone > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 14:16 > >   > > >"A Voyage for Madmen", by Peter Nichols, published 2001, > > Excellent book. Highly recommend it. I have read it 3 times now. I have my copy > on my boat so I cannot quote pages. The part you refer to I think it Sir Chay > Blyth's twin keel bilge keeler, that I recall the book shows a picture of, > beached on a ramp. Its shape does have a superficial resemblance to a > Brent-boat. In the same book, Nichols later highlights the different ways I > believe Bernard Moitessier and Sir Robin Knox-Johnson ran-off downwind in heavy > weather and appears to conclude, there are different strategies for different > boats and no right answer. > > > The steel, shoal-draft, twin, bilge keel gives the ability to beach in any > reasonably protected area. I imagine, since one is not careening against the > bilge or chine on one side, that a twin keel boat would be more forgiving of a > slightly rougher bottom, and less calm conditions. After all, if careening to > scrape and re-paint the bilge on the "up" side should damage the surface on the > other side there is no point. With a twin-keel boat, one might bolt their zincs > to the bottom of the keels like shoes, so that beaching leaves the boat standing > on its zincs, not paint, and any movement and abrasion would just freshen the > surface on the zincs. One has to evaluate how important that convenience of > beaching is to them. > > > The other extreme is, one might want to build something more in the shape of an > Open racing boat. I am certain the orgami methods would work with modifications > (flatter curves are not as geometrically stiff so I suspect some ribs or > stringers and truss framing might be useful). One could make the single keel as > deep as one wanted to cause the boat to be self-righting. Instead of making a > canting keel as many Open racers have, one could make a fixed angle (for more > easily robust mechanical integration at the hull-keel connection), but make a > retractable/folding/telescoping keel for even deeper draft, and better righting > abilities in the deep ocean. One is free to make heavy, robust mechanisms in a > keel because heavy is what the keel is for. If one is starting with steel and a > welder, just about anything is possible. The flatter-bottom, wide-beam racers > also have a lot of cabin area below where the height is more usable -- less > wedge-like spaces with > inadequate height / headroom. They also have a lot of deck room -- not that one > would be using it a lot in heavier weather areas. > > > Maybe Brent has an orgami plan already for such a boat. > > Between those is the single fixed keel boat of moderate draft that most people > have. It is a different compromise. One that is properly shaped, with no > stretched proportions, following the centuries of experience in hull-shape, will > lie-ahull with little intervention or control and be as robust as its material > construction allows. (Meaning, it is not susceptible to geometry-related > failures like buckling.) A twin-keeler might require more active intervention > requiring forethought, tactical planning and equipment, for the same conditions. > It may also be that, as the Nichols book points out, it is a rougher ride -- Sir > Chay Blyth quit before getting into any big trouble as far as I recall. With > greater motion, one needs a stronger stomach, and stronger rig. The later is > easier to do with steel, guaranteeing the boat's integrity. Sir Chay Blyth was > in a fibreglass boat the first time as I recall. The second time, his boat was > sponsored by British Steel. As > Sir Chat Blyth was the first man to sail solo, the wrong way around, in that > steel boat, I think we can be certain it was probably not his stomach that > caused him to quit the first time, but concern for his fibreglass boat. We are > not all Sir Chay Blyth though. > > So, specifically, the only important thing is the voice of experience with this > design in heavy weather: > > Brent said a drogue has been sufficient for him. > > Matt > > >From: mickeyolaf > >... > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24293|24245|2010-10-22 20:00:13|brentswain38|Re: Rough weather|Ultimate stability was never an issue, until designers began going for excessive beam and flush decks. Only then did boats begin to capsize and stay capsized. I prefer boats with more ultimate stability. A slight reduction in beam makes a huge improvement in ultimate stability, as does a trunk cabin with a high camber cabin top. A wheelhouse is another huge improvement in ultimate stability. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > >"A Voyage for Madmen", by Peter Nichols, published 2001, > > > Excellent book. Highly recommend it. I have read it 3 times now. I have my copy on my boat so I cannot quote pages. The part you refer to I think it Sir Chay Blyth's twin keel bilge keeler, that I recall the book shows a picture of, beached on a ramp. Its shape does have a superficial resemblance to a Brent-boat. In the same book, Nichols later highlights the different ways I believe Bernard Moitessier and Sir Robin Knox-Johnson ran-off downwind in heavy weather and appears to conclude, there are different strategies for different boats and no right answer. > > The steel, shoal-draft, twin, bilge keel gives the ability to beach in any reasonably protected area. I imagine, since one is not careening against the bilge or chine on one side, that a twin keel boat would be more forgiving of a slightly rougher bottom, and less calm conditions. After all, if careening to scrape and re-paint the bilge on the "up" side should damage the surface on the other side there is no point. With a twin-keel boat, one might bolt their zincs to the bottom of the keels like shoes, so that beaching leaves the boat standing on its zincs, not paint, and any movement and abrasion would just freshen the surface on the zincs. One has to evaluate how important that convenience of beaching is to them. > > The other extreme is, one might want to build something more in the shape of an Open racing boat. I am certain the orgami methods would work with modifications (flatter curves are not as geometrically stiff so I suspect some ribs or stringers and truss framing might be useful). One could make the single keel as deep as one wanted to cause the boat to be self-righting. Instead of making a canting keel as many Open racers have, one could make a fixed angle (for more easily robust mechanical integration at the hull-keel connection), but make a retractable/folding/telescoping keel for even deeper draft, and better righting abilities in the deep ocean. One is free to make heavy, robust mechanisms in a keel because heavy is what the keel is for. If one is starting with steel and a welder, just about anything is possible. The flatter-bottom, wide-beam racers also have a lot of cabin area below where the height is more usable -- less wedge-like spaces with inadequate height / headroom. They also have a lot of deck room -- not that one would be using it a lot in heavier weather areas. > > Maybe Brent has an orgami plan already for such a boat. > > Between those is the single fixed keel boat of moderate draft that most people have. It is a different compromise. One that is properly shaped, with no stretched proportions, following the centuries of experience in hull-shape, will lie-ahull with little intervention or control and be as robust as its material construction allows. (Meaning, it is not susceptible to geometry-related failures like buckling.) A twin-keeler might require more active intervention requiring forethought, tactical planning and equipment, for the same conditions. It may also be that, as the Nichols book points out, it is a rougher ride -- Sir Chay Blyth quit before getting into any big trouble as far as I recall. With greater motion, one needs a stronger stomach, and stronger rig. The later is easier to do with steel, guaranteeing the boat's integrity. Sir Chay Blyth was in a fibreglass boat the first time as I recall. The second time, his boat was sponsored by British Steel. As Sir Chat Blyth was the first man to sail solo, the wrong way around, in that steel boat, I think we can be certain it was probably not his stomach that caused him to quit the first time, but concern for his fibreglass boat. We are not all Sir Chay Blyth though. > > So, specifically, the only important thing is the voice of experience with this design in heavy weather: > > Brent said a drogue has been sufficient for him. > > Matt > > >From: mickeyolaf > >... > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24294|24245|2010-10-23 07:32:07|Kim|Re: Rough weather|I too am very interested in this! I was going to put twin keels on my Swain 26; but I haven't reached that stage of construction yet so I could still do either twin keels or a single keel. A couple of points that come to mind ... 1) Chay Blythe's "Dytiscus III", that he used for the 1968 Golden Globe race, was a very early British-made Kingfisher 30. Here's a picture of one: http://tinyurl.com/kingfisher30. If he had a rudder that looked anything like that, then I'm not surprised that he had trouble steering! The twin keels may not have been the cause of his heavy-weather steering problems. 2) Sir Chay Blythe was a classic adventurer, and he was probably a pretty cool guy. Although he had earlier rowed across the Atlantic, when he started the Golden Globe race he apparently had zero sailing experience. This is how the London Sunday Times described the day of his start in the race (http://tinyurl.com/LondonSundayTimes and "A Voyage for Madmen" p45-50) ... " ... on 8 June, Chay Blyth followed suit — despite having absolutely no sailing experience. On the day he sailed, he had friends rig the boat "Dytiscus" for him and then sail in front of him in another boat to show him the correct manoeuvres." I'm not for a minute trying to disparage Chay Blythe or anyone else; but did his alleged extraordinary lack of sailing experience when he started this race play a part in his heavy weather steering problems later in the race. Did he, for example, carry a drogue? Had he practiced using it? 3) I've never been anywhere near the Southern Ocean, and I don't plan on going there anytime soon! But almost everything I've ever read about heavy-weather sailing has suggested that shallow draft == good, and deep draft == bad. Some say that shallow-draft boats can be pushed sideways by big waves; but a keel boat would trip over her keel. I don't know if any of these assertions are true or not. Many, many years ago a mate of mine called John Glennie would often sail his very-shallow-draft plywood trimaran from Australia & New Zealand to various Pacific Islands. But rather than doing the long windward beat to get there, he would sail south until he was well into the Southern Ocean, turn left and travel East until he was under the island he wanted to visit, then he would turn left again and sail north to his destination. He said it was quicker that way!!! We all know that when big waves are photographed they look pretty small in the photo - but the photos he showed me that he took of Southern Ocean storm waves looked huge and bloody scary to me! Anyway, John would often say that he would have been toast many times if he had any sort of deep-keel boat in those conditions. (As an aside: about 18 or so years ago, in seas north of New Zealand, John did flip another trimaran he had, and lived on the upturned hull for 119 days! (http://tinyurl.com/JohnGlennie).) I really like the idea of bilge keels: easy hardstanding, reduced rolling, shallower draft, etc. I hope this discussion continues here! Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, jason ball wrote: > this is also a question that i would like to be answered. are bilge keelers in general bad at running down wind, or  was that a rudder problem on dytiscus. this was always a concern of mine.thanks mickey olaf. > > --- On Fri, 22/10/10, mickeyolaf wrote: > From: mickeyolaf > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 4:25 > > "A Voyage for Madmen", by Peter Nichols, published 2001, > page 50, > "he sailed into an unseasonable gale and got his first taste of the bilge-keeler's behavior in bad weather. Running before the wind, the self steering vane would not hold the boat on course. Steering by hand, Blyth couldn't do much better. The two shallow bilge keels lost their grip in the tumbling water near the surface and Dytiscus III began broaching uncontrollably; slewing sideays out of control with one wave, to be smashed into by the next. The boat became unmanageable. Nothing Blyth did seemed to help." > > page 94, > "Unlike deeper-keeled boats, Dytiscus III did not track well with her shallow bilge keels without constant attention to her helm, whether from Blyth or the wind vane gear." > ****************** > It was this book read 10 years ago that convinced me to go with a single keel 36. ______________________________________________________________ | 24295|24245|2010-10-23 07:40:47|Kim|Re: Rough weather|Sorry! Here's the full link to the photo of the Kingfisher 30: http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kyoa.org.uk/Images%2520Web/K30%2520Mk1%2520Keels%2520Rudder.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kyoa.org.uk/k30overview.htm&usg=__pqKpGch68sHf8fGw1Xa0jXBN7qo=&h=254&w=370&sz=11&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=JL02wsOQkF1AsM:&tbnh=151&tbnw=204&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522Kingfisher%2B30%2522%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D1329%26bih%3D760%26tbs%3Disch:1%26prmd%3Div&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1018&vpy=90&dur=57&hovh=186&hovw=271&tx=151&ty=100&ei=3cjCTKSRIImxccK2_JsL&oei=3cjCTKSRIImxccK2_JsL&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0 Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > I too am very interested in this! I was going to put twin keels on my Swain 26; but I haven't reached that stage of construction yet so I could still do either twin keels or a single keel. > > A couple of points that come to mind ... > > 1) Chay Blythe's "Dytiscus III", that he used for the 1968 Golden Globe race, was a very early British-made Kingfisher 30. Here's a picture of one: http://tinyurl.com/kingfisher30. If he had a rudder that looked anything like that, then I'm not surprised that he had trouble steering! The twin keels may not have been the cause of his heavy-weather steering problems. > > 2) Sir Chay Blythe was a classic adventurer, and he was probably a pretty cool guy. Although he had earlier rowed across the Atlantic, when he started the Golden Globe race he apparently had zero sailing experience. This is how the London Sunday Times described the day of his start in the race (http://tinyurl.com/LondonSundayTimes and "A Voyage for Madmen" p45-50) ... > > " ... on 8 June, Chay Blyth followed suit — despite having absolutely no sailing experience. On the day he sailed, he had friends rig the boat "Dytiscus" for him and then sail in front of him in another boat to show him the correct manoeuvres." > > I'm not for a minute trying to disparage Chay Blythe or anyone else; but did his alleged extraordinary lack of sailing experience when he started this race play a part in his heavy weather steering problems later in the race. Did he, for example, carry a drogue? Had he practiced using it? > > 3) I've never been anywhere near the Southern Ocean, and I don't plan on going there anytime soon! But almost everything I've ever read about heavy-weather sailing has suggested that shallow draft == good, and deep draft == bad. Some say that shallow-draft boats can be pushed sideways by big waves; but a keel boat would trip over her keel. I don't know if any of these assertions are true or not. > > Many, many years ago a mate of mine called John Glennie would often sail his very-shallow-draft plywood trimaran from Australia & New Zealand to various Pacific Islands. But rather than doing the long windward beat to get there, he would sail south until he was well into the Southern Ocean, turn left and travel East until he was under the island he wanted to visit, then he would turn left again and sail north to his destination. He said it was quicker that way!!! We all know that when big waves are photographed they look pretty small in the photo - but the photos he showed me that he took of Southern Ocean storm waves looked huge and bloody scary to me! Anyway, John would often say that he would have been toast many times if he had any sort of deep-keel boat in those conditions. (As an aside: about 18 or so years ago, in seas north of New Zealand, John did flip another trimaran he had, and lived on the upturned hull for 119 days! (http://tinyurl.com/JohnGlennie).) > > I really like the idea of bilge keels: easy hardstanding, reduced rolling, shallower draft, etc. I hope this discussion continues here! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, jason ball wrote: > > > this is also a question that i would like to be answered. are bilge keelers in general bad at running down wind, or  was that a rudder problem on dytiscus. this was always a concern of mine.thanks mickey olaf. > > > > --- On Fri, 22/10/10, mickeyolaf wrote: > > > From: mickeyolaf > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 4:25 > > > > "A Voyage for Madmen", by Peter Nichols, published 2001, > > page 50, > > "he sailed into an unseasonable gale and got his first taste of the bilge-keeler's behavior in bad weather. Running before the wind, the self steering vane would not hold the boat on course. Steering by hand, Blyth couldn't do much better. The two shallow bilge keels lost their grip in the tumbling water near the surface and Dytiscus III began broaching uncontrollably; slewing sideays out of control with one wave, to be smashed into by the next. The boat became unmanageable. Nothing Blyth did seemed to help." > > > > page 94, > > "Unlike deeper-keeled boats, Dytiscus III did not track well with her shallow bilge keels without constant attention to her helm, whether from Blyth or the wind vane gear." > > ****************** > > It was this book read 10 years ago that convinced me to go with a single keel 36. > ______________________________________________________________ > | 24296|24245|2010-10-23 09:12:53|Keith Green|Re: Rough weather|From the site you linked to for the picture: *Kingfisher 30 (Mk2) 1969 to 1978. Sail Numbers 19? to 67 * Full Skeg rudder, rudder shaft fitted through aft cabin, extra plates added to aft end of keels. Some modifications to later boats included the engine access plate through the cockpit sole *Kingfisher 30s 197x to 1978. Sail Numbers as K30 but with 'S' at the end of the number. Sail number 60's' is the oldest member number. * Taller mast and more ballast. Enclosed forecabin shelf. Dytiscus III was converted to an 's' by Kingfisher Yachts. The pic is of the earliest model, not Dysticus III. Kingfisher Yachts is here: http://www.kyoa.org.uk/index.htm There is a section with a writeup by Blythe and some pictures of the 30s model. Keith On 10/23/2010 4:32 AM, Kim wrote: > I too am very interested in this! I was going to put twin keels on my Swain 26; but I haven't reached that stage of construction yet so I could still do either twin keels or a single keel. > > A couple of points that come to mind ... > > 1) Chay Blythe's "Dytiscus III", that he used for the 1968 Golden Globe race, was a very early British-made Kingfisher 30. Here's a picture of one: http://tinyurl.com/kingfisher30. If he had a rudder that looked anything like that, then I'm not surprised that he had trouble steering! The twin keels may not have been the cause of his heavy-weather steering problems. > > 2) Sir Chay Blythe was a classic adventurer, and he was probably a pretty cool guy. Although he had earlier rowed across the Atlantic, when he started the Golden Globe race he apparently had zero sailing experience. This is how the London Sunday Times described the day of his start in the race (http://tinyurl.com/LondonSundayTimes and "A Voyage for Madmen" p45-50) ... > > " ... on 8 June, Chay Blyth followed suit --- despite having absolutely no sailing experience. On the day he sailed, he had friends rig the boat "Dytiscus" for him and then sail in front of him in another boat to show him the correct manoeuvres." > > I'm not for a minute trying to disparage Chay Blythe or anyone else; but did his alleged extraordinary lack of sailing experience when he started this race play a part in his heavy weather steering problems later in the race. Did he, for example, carry a drogue? Had he practiced using it? > > 3) I've never been anywhere near the Southern Ocean, and I don't plan on going there anytime soon! But almost everything I've ever read about heavy-weather sailing has suggested that shallow draft == good, and deep draft == bad. Some say that shallow-draft boats can be pushed sideways by big waves; but a keel boat would trip over her keel. I don't know if any of these assertions are true or not. > > Many, many years ago a mate of mine called John Glennie would often sail his very-shallow-draft plywood trimaran from Australia& New Zealand to various Pacific Islands. But rather than doing the long windward beat to get there, he would sail south until he was well into the Southern Ocean, turn left and travel East until he was under the island he wanted to visit, then he would turn left again and sail north to his destination. He said it was quicker that way!!! We all know that when big waves are photographed they look pretty small in the photo - but the photos he showed me that he took of Southern Ocean storm waves looked huge and bloody scary to me! Anyway, John would often say that he would have been toast many times if he had any sort of deep-keel boat in those conditions. (As an aside: about 18 or so years ago, in seas north of New Zealand, John did flip another trimaran he had, and lived on the upturned hull for 119 days! (http://tinyurl.com/JohnGlennie).) > > I really like the idea of bilge keels: easy hardstanding, reduced rolling, shallower draft, etc. I hope this discussion continues here! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, jason ball wrote: > >> this is also a question that i would like to be answered. are bilge keelers in general bad at running down wind, or was that a rudder problem on dytiscus. this was always a concern of mine.thanks mickey olaf. >> >> --- On Fri, 22/10/10, mickeyolaf wrote: >> From: mickeyolaf >> Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> Date: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 4:25 >> >> "A Voyage for Madmen", by Peter Nichols, published 2001, >> page 50, >> "he sailed into an unseasonable gale and got his first taste of the bilge-keeler's behavior in bad weather. Running before the wind, the self steering vane would not hold the boat on course. Steering by hand, Blyth couldn't do much better. The two shallow bilge keels lost their grip in the tumbling water near the surface and Dytiscus III began broaching uncontrollably; slewing sideays out of control with one wave, to be smashed into by the next. The boat became unmanageable. Nothing Blyth did seemed to help." >> >> page 94, >> "Unlike deeper-keeled boats, Dytiscus III did not track well with her shallow bilge keels without constant attention to her helm, whether from Blyth or the wind vane gear." >> ****************** >> It was this book read 10 years ago that convinced me to go with a single keel 36. > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24297|24245|2010-10-23 11:01:01|Matt Malone|Re: Rough weather|>3) I've never been anywhere near the Southern Ocean, and I don't plan on >going there anytime soon! But almost everything I've ever read about >heavy-weather sailing has suggested that shallow draft == good, and deep >draft == bad. Some say that shallow-draft boats can be pushed sideways by >big waves; but a keel boat would trip over her keel. I don't know if any of >these assertions are true or not. One cannot deny the dynamics of that once a good wave hits, anything that sticks out, and catches in the water -- the keel, the gunwale, mast, all help to roll a boat over. The only boat that lacks the projections that will help it roll is an almost cylindrical hard-top, enclosed liferaft with a lot of weight bolted into in the bottom on the inside. True a multi-hull can do OK without keels (usually have dagger boards) but they cannot go without edges, or a mast. Reports seem to indicate they are prone to slide across the water sideways. Clearly, they are just waiting for a big enough wave. Once that wave comes, over she goes, and stays that way. I prefer not to bet on never meeting that wave, or never meeting a smaller wave, in combination with the right gust. Or meeting a really big gust as the boat crests a wave causing the wind to lift it from below like a leaf. In the same situation, a deep single hull lays flat, the gust passes and it pops back up. Broad and light has many routes to an unrecoverable disaster. The deep keel blue water cruiser is not designed not to roll, it is designed to resist rolling at all stages and for all sizes of waves. It resists rolling for moderate waves by having low ballast. Increase the wave size to one that causes near-knockdown and the keel loses its depth and lateral resistance as it heels (a twin-keeler is slower to lose lateral resistance at this point -- not a good thing). When it heels far enough the single deep keeler wants to surf on her side. In this orientation,the boat becomes like a multi-hull with one big floaty hull down-wave and one small heavy lead-filled hull up-wave. True the depth of the keel is no where near the breadth of a multihull. At this point the keel is only causing a rolling force because the boat is moving sideways and the keel is being dragged across the water. The moment arm of the weight pushing down resisting roll is greater than the moment arm of the water force about the center of mass of the boat. The forces can easily come to a balance between 70 and 80 degrees. The boat may be one that really likes to surf for a moment in this orientation until the wave passes. The motion of the water in a non-breaking wave is roughly circular, and this circular action will turn to a downward movement past the top of the circle and make a down-force on the keel to help right the boat. How does a surfer do an early abort from a wave while paddling? They lift the front of their board, the back dips, and the wave starts to overtake them, near the top of the wave the front of their board tips up more and they rapidly fall off the back of the wave. Now if the wave is even larger, the keel will first cause a rolling moment from the boat being pushed sideways. This can turn into a rolling moment where a near horizontal keel is being lift by still up-welling water early in a large wave. At the transition, you have tons of weight trying to hold it to surfing. Clearly, a wave that is large enough will roll it. Once one starts talking of breaking waves, the water on the top is going forward, the water on the bottom, backward, and no matter the boat, all forces are tending to roll it. The single deep keel will like to lay flat as a sandwich between the two layers, with tons of down-force resisting the keel coming up into the forward flowing water. The problem is, there are other things that cause a rolling moment at this point, the gunwale, and ultimately the mast. Once the mast buries, unless the wave has just passed at that point, the mast has a huge moment-arm and will roll the boat more. At some point, the wave passes. Is the mast past straight down ? Will it be a complete roll or will it come up on the same side it went down ? Point is, the single deep keel is excellent motivation to come up promptly. A more shallow keel reduces the breath of the multihull in the side-surfing orientation, so while it may have less tendency to reach the near-knockdown, but it has less resistance to continue rolling at that point. Look at a deep keel, single keel boat from below. A small frontal area, sides that sweep outward at a low angle. The water wants to flow around a deep keel that has laid over at 70-90 degrees. It has the shape and weight distribution of a tennis bird. Also remember, when it is laid over 70-90 degrees, the rig and any sails have spilled nearly all their wind-force, greatly reducing their contribution to rolling. The deep single-keeler is saying, ok 40-50 degrees may be pretty easy, but all forces are mounting quickly after that, and resisting the snap to the keel being lifted right over. At 70 or 90 degrees it becomes the tennis bird, letting the water flow by, up the keel, over the top-sides and jetting over the deck. Once the gunwale or mast dig deeply, one is relying on ultimate stability. There is always the possibility of a bigger wave -- one needs a staged defense. There is nothing wrong with a single deep keel that makes a boat look like a tennis bird from below. One might argue that a boat with twin keels and dihedral would provide for an unstable snap from surfing to rolling in that same 70-90 degree orientation. Sort of like the firing of a Harley engine, the lower keel is just reducing in surfing-roll force, when the top keel is starting to catch any forward-flowing water of a breaking wave. The wrong wave and the transition from mast above the water to mast-plant becomes the fastest transition in the roll of the entire process. Of course, a single-keeler is only a few degrees from a mast plant, and the gunwale is digging in, so one would probably have to do it a lot in both types of boats to really see the difference. There is no reason to say a single deep keeler is worse in this orientation though. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24298|24298|2010-10-23 13:39:28|Mark Hamill|DIY hot dipped galvanizing|has anyone ever done hot dipped galvanizing at home?? There does not seem to be anything on the internet--maybe looking in the wrong place?? From Wikipedia this chemical list came up. In 1742, French chemist Paul Jacques Malouin described a method of coating iron by dipping it in molten zinc in a presentation to the French Royal Academy. In 1836, French chemist Stanislas Sorel obtained a patent for a method of coating iron with zinc, after first cleaning it with 9% sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and fluxing it with ammonium chloride (NH4Cl). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24299|24245|2010-10-23 17:39:01|Kim|Re: Rough weather|Thanks for the analysis Matt! Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht _____________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > >3) I've never been anywhere near the Southern Ocean, and I don't plan on > >going there anytime soon! But almost everything I've ever read about > >heavy-weather sailing has suggested that shallow draft == good, and deep > >draft == bad. Some say that shallow-draft boats can be pushed sideways > by > >big waves; but a keel boat would trip over her keel. I don't know if > any of > >these assertions are true or not. > > One cannot deny the dynamics of that once a good wave hits, anything that > sticks out, and catches in the water -- the keel, the gunwale, mast, all help > to roll a boat over. The only boat that lacks the projections that will help > it roll is an almost cylindrical hard-top, enclosed liferaft with a lot of > weight bolted into in the bottom on the inside. True a multi-hull can do > OK without keels (usually have dagger boards) but they cannot go without > edges, or a mast. Reports seem to indicate they are prone to slide across > the water sideways. Clearly, they are just waiting for a big enough wave. > Once that wave comes, over she goes, and stays that way. I prefer not to > bet on never meeting that wave, or never meeting a smaller wave, in > combination with the right gust. Or meeting a really big gust as the boat > crests a wave causing the wind to lift it from below like a leaf. In the same > situation, a deep single hull lays flat, the gust passes and it pops back up. > Broad and light has many routes to an unrecoverable disaster. > > The deep keel blue water cruiser is not designed not to roll, it is designed > to resist rolling at all stages and for all sizes of waves. > > It resists rolling for moderate waves by having low ballast. > > Increase the wave size to one that causes near-knockdown and the keel loses > its depth and lateral resistance as it heels (a twin-keeler is slower to lose > lateral resistance at this point -- not a good thing). > > When it heels far enough the single deep keeler wants to surf on her side. > In this orientation,the boat becomes like a multi-hull with one big floaty > hull down-wave and one small heavy lead-filled hull up-wave. True the > depth of the keel is no where near the breadth of a multihull. At this point > the keel is only causing a rolling force because the boat is moving sideways > and the keel is being dragged across the water. The moment arm of the > weight pushing down resisting roll is greater than the moment arm of the > water force about the center of mass of the boat. The forces can easily come > to a balance between 70 and 80 degrees. The boat may be one that really > likes to surf for a moment in this orientation until the wave passes. > > The motion of the water in a non-breaking wave is roughly circular, and > this circular action will turn to a downward movement past the top of the > circle and make a down-force on the keel to help right the boat. > > How does a surfer do an early abort from a wave while paddling? > They lift the front of their board, the back dips, and the wave starts to > overtake them, near the top of the wave the front of their board tips up > more and they rapidly fall off the back of the wave. > > Now if the wave is even larger, the keel will first cause a rolling moment > from the boat being pushed sideways. This can turn into a rolling moment > where a near horizontal keel is being lift by still up-welling water early in a > large wave. At the transition, you have tons of weight trying to hold it to > surfing. Clearly, a wave that is large enough will roll it. > > Once one starts talking of breaking waves, the water on the top is going > forward, the water on the bottom, backward, and no matter the boat, all > forces are tending to roll it. The single deep keel will like to lay flat as a > sandwich between the two layers, with tons of down-force resisting the keel > coming up into the forward flowing water. The problem is, there are other > things that cause a rolling moment at this point, the gunwale, and > ultimately the mast. Once the mast buries, unless the wave has just passed > at that point, the mast has a huge moment-arm and will roll the boat more. > > At some point, the wave passes. Is the mast past straight down ? Will it be > a complete roll or will it come up on the same side it went down ? Point is, > the single deep keel is excellent motivation to come up promptly. > > A more shallow keel reduces the breath of the multihull in the side-surfing > orientation, so while it may have less tendency to reach the near-knockdown, > but it has less resistance to continue rolling at that point. > > Look at a deep keel, single keel boat from below. A small frontal area, sides > that sweep outward at a low angle. The water wants to flow around a deep > keel that has laid over at 70-90 degrees. It has the shape and weight > distribution of a tennis bird. Also remember, when it is laid over 70-90 > degrees, the rig and any sails have spilled nearly all their wind-force, > greatly reducing their contribution to rolling. > > The deep single-keeler is saying, ok 40-50 degrees may be pretty easy, but all > forces are mounting quickly after that, and resisting the snap to the keel > being lifted right over. At 70 or 90 degrees it becomes the tennis bird, > letting the water flow by, up the keel, over the top-sides and jetting over the > deck. Once the gunwale or mast dig deeply, one is relying on ultimate stability. > > There is always the possibility of a bigger wave -- one needs a staged defense. > > There is nothing wrong with a single deep keel that makes a boat look > like a tennis bird from below. One might argue that a boat with twin keels > and dihedral would provide for an unstable snap from surfing to rolling > in that same 70-90 degree orientation. Sort of like the firing of a Harley > engine, the lower keel is just reducing in surfing-roll force, when the top > keel is starting to catch any forward-flowing water of a breaking wave. The > wrong wave and the transition from mast above the water to mast-plant becomes > the fastest transition in the roll of the entire process. Of course, a > single-keeler is only a few degrees from a mast plant, and the gunwale is > digging in, so one would probably have to do it a lot in both types of boats > to really see the difference. There is no reason to say a single deep keeler > is worse in this orientation though. > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24300|24245|2010-10-23 17:41:26|Kim|Re: Rough weather|You're right, Keith. It seems the Kingfisher 30's built from 1965 did have a rudder supported by a skeg. So an unusual or insufficient rudder setup was probably not the cause of his heavy-weather steering problems. It's interesting that, from Chay Blythe's review of this twin-keel boat at http://www.kyoa.org.uk/k30reviews.htm, he otherwise seemed extremely happy with it. Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Keith Green wrote: > From the site you linked to for the picture: > > *Kingfisher 30 (Mk2) 1969 to 1978. Sail Numbers 19? to 67 > * Full Skeg rudder, rudder shaft fitted through aft cabin, extra plates > added to aft end of keels. Some modifications to later boats included > the engine access plate through the cockpit sole > > *Kingfisher 30s 197x to 1978. Sail Numbers as K30 but with 'S' at the > end of the number. Sail number 60's' is the oldest member number. > * Taller mast and more ballast. Enclosed forecabin shelf. Dytiscus III > was converted to an 's' by Kingfisher Yachts. > > The pic is of the earliest model, not Dysticus III. > > Kingfisher Yachts is here: http://www.kyoa.org.uk/index.htm > > There is a section with a writeup by Blythe and some pictures of > the 30s model. > > Keith > > > On 10/23/2010 4:32 AM, Kim wrote: > > I too am very interested in this! I was going to put twin keels on my Swain 26; but I haven't reached that stage of construction yet so I could still do either twin keels or a single keel. > > > > A couple of points that come to mind ... > > > > 1) Chay Blythe's "Dytiscus III", that he used for the 1968 Golden Globe race, was a very early British-made Kingfisher 30. Here's a picture of one: http://tinyurl.com/kingfisher30. If he had a rudder that looked anything like that, then I'm not surprised that he had trouble steering! The twin keels may not have been the cause of his heavy-weather steering problems. > > > > 2) Sir Chay Blythe was a classic adventurer, and he was probably a pretty cool guy. Although he had earlier rowed across the Atlantic, when he started the Golden Globe race he apparently had zero sailing experience. This is how the London Sunday Times described the day of his start in the race (http://tinyurl.com/LondonSundayTimes and "A Voyage for Madmen" p45-50) ... > > > > " ... on 8 June, Chay Blyth followed suit --- despite having absolutely no sailing experience. On the day he sailed, he had friends rig the boat "Dytiscus" for him and then sail in front of him in another boat to show him the correct manoeuvres." > > > > I'm not for a minute trying to disparage Chay Blythe or anyone else; but did his alleged extraordinary lack of sailing experience when he started this race play a part in his heavy weather steering problems later in the race. Did he, for example, carry a drogue? Had he practiced using it? > > > > 3) I've never been anywhere near the Southern Ocean, and I don't plan on going there anytime soon! But almost everything I've ever read about heavy-weather sailing has suggested that shallow draft == good, and deep draft == bad. Some say that shallow-draft boats can be pushed sideways by big waves; but a keel boat would trip over her keel. I don't know if any of these assertions are true or not. > > > > Many, many years ago a mate of mine called John Glennie would often sail his very-shallow-draft plywood trimaran from Australia& New Zealand to various Pacific Islands. But rather than doing the long windward beat to get there, he would sail south until he was well into the Southern Ocean, turn left and travel East until he was under the island he wanted to visit, then he would turn left again and sail north to his destination. He said it was quicker that way!!! We all know that when big waves are photographed they look pretty small in the photo - but the photos he showed me that he took of Southern Ocean storm waves looked huge and bloody scary to me! Anyway, John would often say that he would have been toast many times if he had any sort of deep-keel boat in those conditions. (As an aside: about 18 or so years ago, in seas north of New Zealand, John did flip another trimaran he had, and lived on the upturned hull for 119 days! (http://tinyurl.com/JohnGlennie).) > > > > I really like the idea of bilge keels: easy hardstanding, reduced rolling, shallower draft, etc. I hope this discussion continues here! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > ______________________________________________________________ | 24301|24298|2010-10-23 18:36:44|Tom Mann|Re: DIY hot dipped galvanizing|Mark I think it's one of those deals that would cost you a small fortune compared to taking it in and having it done. I build basket screens for pumps from time to time and get them hot dipped cost about $175 for doing 1 or 6 Tom On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Mark Hamill wrote: > has anyone ever done hot dipped galvanizing at home?? There does not seem > to be anything on the internet--maybe looking in the wrong place?? From > Wikipedia this chemical list came up. > In 1742, French chemist Paul Jacques Malouin described a method of coating > iron by dipping it in molten zinc in a presentation to the French Royal > Academy. In 1836, French chemist Stanislas Sorel obtained a patent for a > method of coating iron with zinc, after first cleaning it with 9% sulfuric > acid (H2SO4) and fluxing it with ammonium chloride (NH4Cl). > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24302|24245|2010-10-23 18:51:39|brentswain38|Re: Rough weather|If you plan to cruise the Queensland coast , you definitely want twin keels. My uncle, who has cruised there for many years said the harbours are largely river mouths . If you draw less then 5 feet and can dry out, you are in a river.If you draw more than 5 feet and can't dry out, you are bouncing in the swell in open ocean. Others cruising there have told me the same. One 36 I built just left for Patagonia and South Georgia. A Kiwi wrote a book about his trip down there in a 36 ft wooden twin keeler. I believe the boat may have been named Totorore. He was very hapy with his twin keelr in the southern ocean. I consider twin keels to have been one of the best decisions I've made on my boat. Absolutely no regrets. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > I too am very interested in this! I was going to put twin keels on my Swain 26; but I haven't reached that stage of construction yet so I could still do either twin keels or a single keel. > > A couple of points that come to mind ... > > 1) Chay Blythe's "Dytiscus III", that he used for the 1968 Golden Globe race, was a very early British-made Kingfisher 30. Here's a picture of one: http://tinyurl.com/kingfisher30. If he had a rudder that looked anything like that, then I'm not surprised that he had trouble steering! The twin keels may not have been the cause of his heavy-weather steering problems. > > 2) Sir Chay Blythe was a classic adventurer, and he was probably a pretty cool guy. Although he had earlier rowed across the Atlantic, when he started the Golden Globe race he apparently had zero sailing experience. This is how the London Sunday Times described the day of his start in the race (http://tinyurl.com/LondonSundayTimes and "A Voyage for Madmen" p45-50) ... > > " ... on 8 June, Chay Blyth followed suit � despite having absolutely no sailing experience. On the day he sailed, he had friends rig the boat "Dytiscus" for him and then sail in front of him in another boat to show him the correct manoeuvres." > > I'm not for a minute trying to disparage Chay Blythe or anyone else; but did his alleged extraordinary lack of sailing experience when he started this race play a part in his heavy weather steering problems later in the race. Did he, for example, carry a drogue? Had he practiced using it? > > 3) I've never been anywhere near the Southern Ocean, and I don't plan on going there anytime soon! But almost everything I've ever read about heavy-weather sailing has suggested that shallow draft == good, and deep draft == bad. Some say that shallow-draft boats can be pushed sideways by big waves; but a keel boat would trip over her keel. I don't know if any of these assertions are true or not. > > Many, many years ago a mate of mine called John Glennie would often sail his very-shallow-draft plywood trimaran from Australia & New Zealand to various Pacific Islands. But rather than doing the long windward beat to get there, he would sail south until he was well into the Southern Ocean, turn left and travel East until he was under the island he wanted to visit, then he would turn left again and sail north to his destination. He said it was quicker that way!!! We all know that when big waves are photographed they look pretty small in the photo - but the photos he showed me that he took of Southern Ocean storm waves looked huge and bloody scary to me! Anyway, John would often say that he would have been toast many times if he had any sort of deep-keel boat in those conditions. (As an aside: about 18 or so years ago, in seas north of New Zealand, John did flip another trimaran he had, and lived on the upturned hull for 119 days! (http://tinyurl.com/JohnGlennie).) > > I really like the idea of bilge keels: easy hardstanding, reduced rolling, shallower draft, etc. I hope this discussion continues here! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, jason ball wrote: > > > this is also a question that i would like to be answered. are bilge keelers in general bad at running down wind, or� was that a rudder problem on dytiscus. this was�always a concern of mine.thanks mickey olaf. > > > > --- On Fri, 22/10/10, mickeyolaf wrote: > > > From: mickeyolaf > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 4:25 > > > > "A Voyage for Madmen", by Peter Nichols, published 2001, > > page 50, > > "he sailed into an unseasonable gale and got his first taste of the bilge-keeler's behavior in bad weather. Running before the wind, the self steering vane would not hold the boat on course. Steering by hand, Blyth couldn't do much better. The two shallow bilge keels lost their grip in the tumbling water near the surface and Dytiscus III began broaching uncontrollably; slewing sideays out of control with one wave, to be smashed into by the next. The boat became unmanageable. Nothing Blyth did seemed to help." > > > > page 94, > > "Unlike deeper-keeled boats, Dytiscus III did not track well with her shallow bilge keels without constant attention to her helm, whether from Blyth or the wind vane gear." > > ****************** > > It was this book read 10 years ago that convinced me to go with a single keel 36. > ______________________________________________________________ > | 24303|24245|2010-10-23 18:58:17|brentswain38|Re: Rough weather|I think long before one gets into such a dangerous situation , it is long past time to throw a galerider type,or series drogue off the stern quarter , eliminating the conditions you describe, making them irrelevant. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > >3) I've never been anywhere near the Southern Ocean, and I don't plan on > > >going there anytime soon! But almost everything I've ever read about > > >heavy-weather sailing has suggested that shallow draft == good, and deep > > >draft == bad. Some say that shallow-draft boats can be pushed sideways > by > >big waves; but a keel boat would trip over her keel. I don't know if > any of > >these assertions are true or not. > > One cannot deny the dynamics of that once a good wave hits, anything that > sticks out, and catches in the water -- the keel, the gunwale, mast, all help > to roll a boat over. The only boat that lacks the projections that will help > it roll is an almost cylindrical hard-top, enclosed liferaft with a lot of > weight bolted into in the bottom on the inside. True a multi-hull can do > OK without keels (usually have dagger boards) but they cannot go without > edges, or a mast. Reports seem to indicate they are prone to slide across > the water sideways. Clearly, they are just waiting for a big enough wave. > Once that wave comes, over she goes, and stays that way. I prefer not to > bet on never meeting that wave, or never meeting a smaller wave, in > combination with the right gust. Or meeting a really big gust as the boat > crests a wave causing the wind to lift it from below like a leaf. In the same > situation, a deep single hull lays flat, the gust passes and it pops back up. > Broad and light has many routes to an unrecoverable disaster. > > The deep keel blue water cruiser is not designed not to roll, it is designed > to resist rolling at all stages and for all sizes of waves. > > It resists rolling for moderate waves by having low ballast. > > Increase the wave size to one that causes near-knockdown and the keel loses > its depth and lateral resistance as it heels (a twin-keeler is slower to lose > lateral resistance at this point -- not a good thing). > > When it heels far enough the single deep keeler wants to surf on her side. > In this orientation,the boat becomes like a multi-hull with one big floaty > hull down-wave and one small heavy lead-filled hull up-wave. True the > depth of the keel is no where near the breadth of a multihull. At this point > the keel is only causing a rolling force because the boat is moving sideways > and the keel is being dragged across the water. The moment arm of the > weight pushing down resisting roll is greater than the moment arm of the > water force about the center of mass of the boat. The forces can easily come > to a balance between 70 and 80 degrees. The boat may be one that really > likes to surf for a moment in this orientation until the wave passes. > > The motion of the water in a non-breaking wave is roughly circular, and > this circular action will turn to a downward movement past the top of the > circle and make a down-force on the keel to help right the boat. > > How does a surfer do an early abort from a wave while paddling? > They lift the front of their board, the back dips, and the wave starts to > overtake them, near the top of the wave the front of their board tips up > more and they rapidly fall off the back of the wave. > > Now if the wave is even larger, the keel will first cause a rolling moment > from the boat being pushed sideways. This can turn into a rolling moment > where a near horizontal keel is being lift by still up-welling water early in a > large wave. At the transition, you have tons of weight trying to hold it to > surfing. Clearly, a wave that is large enough will roll it. > > Once one starts talking of breaking waves, the water on the top is going > forward, the water on the bottom, backward, and no matter the boat, all > forces are tending to roll it. The single deep keel will like to lay flat as a > sandwich between the two layers, with tons of down-force resisting the keel > coming up into the forward flowing water. The problem is, there are other > things that cause a rolling moment at this point, the gunwale, and > ultimately the mast. Once the mast buries, unless the wave has just passed > at that point, the mast has a huge moment-arm and will roll the boat more. > > At some point, the wave passes. Is the mast past straight down ? Will it be > a complete roll or will it come up on the same side it went down ? Point is, > the single deep keel is excellent motivation to come up promptly. > > A more shallow keel reduces the breath of the multihull in the side-surfing > orientation, so while it may have less tendency to reach the near-knockdown, > but it has less resistance to continue rolling at that point. > > Look at a deep keel, single keel boat from below. A small frontal area, sides > that sweep outward at a low angle. The water wants to flow around a deep > keel that has laid over at 70-90 degrees. It has the shape and weight > distribution of a tennis bird. Also remember, when it is laid over 70-90 > degrees, the rig and any sails have spilled nearly all their wind-force, > greatly reducing their contribution to rolling. > > The deep single-keeler is saying, ok 40-50 degrees may be pretty easy, but all > forces are mounting quickly after that, and resisting the snap to the keel > being lifted right over. At 70 or 90 degrees it becomes the tennis bird, > letting the water flow by, up the keel, over the top-sides and jetting over the > deck. Once the gunwale or mast dig deeply, one is relying on ultimate stability. > > There is always the possibility of a bigger wave -- one needs a staged defense. > > There is nothing wrong with a single deep keel that makes a boat look > like a tennis bird from below. One might argue that a boat with twin keels > and dihedral would provide for an unstable snap from surfing to rolling > in that same 70-90 degree orientation. Sort of like the firing of a Harley > engine, the lower keel is just reducing in surfing-roll force, when the top > keel is starting to catch any forward-flowing water of a breaking wave. The > wrong wave and the transition from mast above the water to mast-plant becomes > the fastest transition in the roll of the entire process. Of course, a > single-keeler is only a few degrees from a mast plant, and the gunwale is > digging in, so one would probably have to do it a lot in both types of boats > to really see the difference. There is no reason to say a single deep keeler > is worse in this orientation though. > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24304|24298|2010-10-23 19:01:54|brentswain38|Re: DIY hot dipped galvanizing|Tried it, with mixed results. A drop of water remaining from the flux resulted in an explosion which coated me with molten zinc. This is common in commercial galvanizing operations. Getting the zinc to properly wet out the steel is tricky, sometimes it does, sometimes it simply runs off. . Lots of flux, lots of heat and very dry, super clean metal seems to be the trick. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > has anyone ever done hot dipped galvanizing at home?? There does not seem to be anything on the internet--maybe looking in the wrong place?? From Wikipedia this chemical list came up. > In 1742, French chemist Paul Jacques Malouin described a method of coating iron by dipping it in molten zinc in a presentation to the French Royal Academy. In 1836, French chemist Stanislas Sorel obtained a patent for a method of coating iron with zinc, after first cleaning it with 9% sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and fluxing it with ammonium chloride (NH4Cl). > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24305|24298|2010-10-23 19:19:42|Gary H. Lucas|Re: DIY hot dipped galvanizing|I've had lots of hot dip galvanizing done, this really isn't a do it yourself project. I got my current employer switched over to hot dip galvanizing instead of painting the skids we build. You need a fortune in zinc just to have enough to completely submerge your part, and it can be very dangerous too. Just find somebody that sends parts for galvanizing on a regular basis and get them to include your parts. I just got my anchor redone that way. Gary H. Lucas From: Mark Hamill Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2010 1:39 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] DIY hot dipped galvanizing has anyone ever done hot dipped galvanizing at home?? There does not seem to be anything on the internet--maybe looking in the wrong place?? From Wikipedia this chemical list came up. In 1742, French chemist Paul Jacques Malouin described a method of coating iron by dipping it in molten zinc in a presentation to the French Royal Academy. In 1836, French chemist Stanislas Sorel obtained a patent for a method of coating iron with zinc, after first cleaning it with 9% sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and fluxing it with ammonium chloride (NH4Cl). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24306|24298|2010-10-23 19:41:50|Mark Hamill|Re: DIY hot dipped galvanizing|Thanks for your observations--I had quite a bit galvanizing done--in Calgary Alberta and then some small bits were done for beer. There aren't any plants on Vancouver Island and the last time I had something done in Richmond BC they tried to overcharge me (I weighed it before it went in) MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24307|24245|2010-10-24 07:15:16|Kim|Re: Rough weather|Yeah, Brent, you're absolutely right! I've made many trips up and down the wonderful Queensland coast. The fun you have in a boat around here is most definitely in inverse proportion to its keel depth. And I've got Moreton Bay in my backyard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moreton_Bay), and a lot of that is pretty shallow, particularly down its southern end. One of the reasons I'm building your 26ft design is because it has twin keels. It will have twin keels when it hits the water! :-) Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > If you plan to cruise the Queensland coast , you definitely want twin keels. My uncle, who has cruised there for many years said the harbours are largely river mouths . If you draw less then 5 feet and can dry out, you are in a river.If you draw more than 5 feet and can't dry out, you are bouncing in the swell in open ocean. > Others cruising there have told me the same. > One 36 I built just left for Patagonia and South Georgia. > A Kiwi wrote a book about his trip down there in a 36 ft wooden twin keeler. I believe the boat may have been named Totorore. He was very hapy with his twin keelr in the southern ocean. > I consider twin keels to have been one of the best decisions I've made on my boat. Absolutely no regrets. ______________________________________________________________ | 24308|24282|2010-10-24 08:28:20|raykimbro|Re: Heavy helm on steel Colin Archer|Dumb question - but, would adding a trim tab help in this instance? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > Ha, yeah balance the sails, I have that problem ALL the time though there has been some improvement since last year.... > I'll swing by and say hi on my way up to Comox in a few weeks. > > > > > >My 120 pound wife has difficulty with a heavy helm, requires > > much > > >effort on the tiller even in 30 knots with a reefed main and small > > jib. > > > | 24309|24282|2010-10-24 08:37:42|Alan Boucher|Re: Heavy helm on steel Colin Archer|On 10/24/2010 8:28 AM, raykimbro wrote: > > Dumb question - but, would adding a trim tab help in this instance? > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "h" wrote: > > > > Ha, yeah balance the sails, I have that problem ALL the time though > there has been some improvement since last year.... > > I'll swing by and say hi on my way up to Comox in a few weeks. > > > > > > > > >My 120 pound wife has difficulty with a heavy helm, requires > > > much > > > >effort on the tiller even in 30 knots with a reefed main and small > > > jib. > > > > > > > An even more extreme approach is to modify the rudder to a NACA symmetrical lifting airfoil. I replaced the rudder on a gaff rigged Hudson river sloop which was originally staves of 2" oak with an approximately 6" thick airfoil. The weather helm on a beam reach completely disappeared. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24310|24245|2010-10-24 15:40:16|h|Re: Rough weather|keep in mind too that the Brentboat rudders are pretty hefty bar door types, which probably helps steerage. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > You're right, Keith. It seems the Kingfisher 30's built from 1965 did have a rudder supported by a skeg. So an unusual or insufficient rudder setup was probably not the cause of his heavy-weather steering problems. > > It's interesting that, from Chay Blythe's review of this twin-keel boat at http://www.kyoa.org.uk/k30reviews.htm, he otherwise seemed extremely happy with it. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Keith Green wrote: > > > From the site you linked to for the picture: > > > > *Kingfisher 30 (Mk2) 1969 to 1978. Sail Numbers 19? to 67 > > * Full Skeg rudder, rudder shaft fitted through aft cabin, extra plates > > added to aft end of keels. Some modifications to later boats included > > the engine access plate through the cockpit sole > > > > *Kingfisher 30s 197x to 1978. Sail Numbers as K30 but with 'S' at the > > end of the number. Sail number 60's' is the oldest member number. > > * Taller mast and more ballast. Enclosed forecabin shelf. Dytiscus III > > was converted to an 's' by Kingfisher Yachts. > > > > The pic is of the earliest model, not Dysticus III. > > > > Kingfisher Yachts is here: http://www.kyoa.org.uk/index.htm > > > > There is a section with a writeup by Blythe and some pictures of > > the 30s model. > > > > Keith > > > > > > On 10/23/2010 4:32 AM, Kim wrote: > > > I too am very interested in this! I was going to put twin keels on my Swain 26; but I haven't reached that stage of construction yet so I could still do either twin keels or a single keel. > > > > > > A couple of points that come to mind ... > > > > > > 1) Chay Blythe's "Dytiscus III", that he used for the 1968 Golden Globe race, was a very early British-made Kingfisher 30. Here's a picture of one: http://tinyurl.com/kingfisher30. If he had a rudder that looked anything like that, then I'm not surprised that he had trouble steering! The twin keels may not have been the cause of his heavy-weather steering problems. > > > > > > 2) Sir Chay Blythe was a classic adventurer, and he was probably a pretty cool guy. Although he had earlier rowed across the Atlantic, when he started the Golden Globe race he apparently had zero sailing experience. This is how the London Sunday Times described the day of his start in the race (http://tinyurl.com/LondonSundayTimes and "A Voyage for Madmen" p45-50) ... > > > > > > " ... on 8 June, Chay Blyth followed suit --- despite having absolutely no sailing experience. On the day he sailed, he had friends rig the boat "Dytiscus" for him and then sail in front of him in another boat to show him the correct manoeuvres." > > > > > > I'm not for a minute trying to disparage Chay Blythe or anyone else; but did his alleged extraordinary lack of sailing experience when he started this race play a part in his heavy weather steering problems later in the race. Did he, for example, carry a drogue? Had he practiced using it? > > > > > > 3) I've never been anywhere near the Southern Ocean, and I don't plan on going there anytime soon! But almost everything I've ever read about heavy-weather sailing has suggested that shallow draft == good, and deep draft == bad. Some say that shallow-draft boats can be pushed sideways by big waves; but a keel boat would trip over her keel. I don't know if any of these assertions are true or not. > > > > > > Many, many years ago a mate of mine called John Glennie would often sail his very-shallow-draft plywood trimaran from Australia& New Zealand to various Pacific Islands. But rather than doing the long windward beat to get there, he would sail south until he was well into the Southern Ocean, turn left and travel East until he was under the island he wanted to visit, then he would turn left again and sail north to his destination. He said it was quicker that way!!! We all know that when big waves are photographed they look pretty small in the photo - but the photos he showed me that he took of Southern Ocean storm waves looked huge and bloody scary to me! Anyway, John would often say that he would have been toast many times if he had any sort of deep-keel boat in those conditions. (As an aside: about 18 or so years ago, in seas north of New Zealand, John did flip another trimaran he had, and lived on the upturned hull for 119 days! (http://tinyurl.com/JohnGlennie).) > > > > > > I really like the idea of bilge keels: easy hardstanding, reduced rolling, shallower draft, etc. I hope this discussion continues here! > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > Kim. > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > > ______________________________________________________________ > | 24311|24245|2010-10-24 17:35:28|jason ball|Re: Rough weather|thanks for that.. --- On Sat, 23/10/10, brentswain38 wrote: From: brentswain38 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, 23 October, 2010, 23:51   If you plan to cruise the Queensland coast , you definitely want twin keels. My uncle, who has cruised there for many years said the harbours are largely river mouths . If you draw less then 5 feet and can dry out, you are in a river.If you draw more than 5 feet and can't dry out, you are bouncing in the swell in open ocean. Others cruising there have told me the same. One 36 I built just left for Patagonia and South Georgia. A Kiwi wrote a book about his trip down there in a 36 ft wooden twin keeler. I believe the boat may have been named Totorore. He was very hapy with his twin keelr in the southern ocean. I consider twin keels to have been one of the best decisions I've made on my boat. Absolutely no regrets. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > I too am very interested in this! I was going to put twin keels on my Swain 26; but I haven't reached that stage of construction yet so I could still do either twin keels or a single keel. > > A couple of points that come to mind ... > > 1) Chay Blythe's "Dytiscus III", that he used for the 1968 Golden Globe race, was a very early British-made Kingfisher 30. Here's a picture of one: http://tinyurl.com/kingfisher30. If he had a rudder that looked anything like that, then I'm not surprised that he had trouble steering! The twin keels may not have been the cause of his heavy-weather steering problems. > > 2) Sir Chay Blythe was a classic adventurer, and he was probably a pretty cool guy. Although he had earlier rowed across the Atlantic, when he started the Golden Globe race he apparently had zero sailing experience. This is how the London Sunday Times described the day of his start in the race (http://tinyurl.com/LondonSundayTimes and "A Voyage for Madmen" p45-50) ... > > " ... on 8 June, Chay Blyth followed suit � despite having absolutely no sailing experience. On the day he sailed, he had friends rig the boat "Dytiscus" for him and then sail in front of him in another boat to show him the correct manoeuvres." > > I'm not for a minute trying to disparage Chay Blythe or anyone else; but did his alleged extraordinary lack of sailing experience when he started this race play a part in his heavy weather steering problems later in the race. Did he, for example, carry a drogue? Had he practiced using it? > > 3) I've never been anywhere near the Southern Ocean, and I don't plan on going there anytime soon! But almost everything I've ever read about heavy-weather sailing has suggested that shallow draft == good, and deep draft == bad. Some say that shallow-draft boats can be pushed sideways by big waves; but a keel boat would trip over her keel. I don't know if any of these assertions are true or not. > > Many, many years ago a mate of mine called John Glennie would often sail his very-shallow-draft plywood trimaran from Australia & New Zealand to various Pacific Islands. But rather than doing the long windward beat to get there, he would sail south until he was well into the Southern Ocean, turn left and travel East until he was under the island he wanted to visit, then he would turn left again and sail north to his destination. He said it was quicker that way!!! We all know that when big waves are photographed they look pretty small in the photo - but the photos he showed me that he took of Southern Ocean storm waves looked huge and bloody scary to me! Anyway, John would often say that he would have been toast many times if he had any sort of deep-keel boat in those conditions. (As an aside: about 18 or so years ago, in seas north of New Zealand, John did flip another trimaran he had, and lived on the upturned hull for 119 days! (http://tinyurl.com/JohnGlennie).) > > I really like the idea of bilge keels: easy hardstanding, reduced rolling, shallower draft, etc. I hope this discussion continues here! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > __________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, jason ball wrote: > > > this is also a question that i would like to be answered. are bilge keelers in general bad at running down wind, or� was that a rudder problem on dytiscus. this was�always a concern of mine.thanks mickey olaf. > > > > --- On Fri, 22/10/10, mickeyolaf wrote: > > > From: mickeyolaf > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 4:25 > > > > "A Voyage for Madmen", by Peter Nichols, published 2001, > > page 50, > > "he sailed into an unseasonable gale and got his first taste of the bilge-keeler's behavior in bad weather. Running before the wind, the self steering vane would not hold the boat on course. Steering by hand, Blyth couldn't do much better. The two shallow bilge keels lost their grip in the tumbling water near the surface and Dytiscus III began broaching uncontrollably; slewing sideays out of control with one wave, to be smashed into by the next. The boat became unmanageable. Nothing Blyth did seemed to help." > > > > page 94, > > "Unlike deeper-keeled boats, Dytiscus III did not track well with her shallow bilge keels without constant attention to her helm, whether from Blyth or the wind vane gear." > > ****************** > > It was this book read 10 years ago that convinced me to go with a single keel 36. > __________________________________________________________ > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24312|24298|2010-10-24 21:24:14|Matt Malone|Re: DIY hot dipped galvanizing|I have inspected a couple of galvanizing plants. I believe the last thing before the molten zinc is Zinc-Ammonium-Chloride. It is a greasy paste that I am certain is the flux. Before that, they clean the steel with NaOH then H2SO4. Don't know the concentrations. Don't know how much of the Zn-Nh4-Cl they put on. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 23:01:43 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: DIY hot dipped galvanizing Tried it, with mixed results. A drop of water remaining from the flux resulted in an explosion which coated me with molten zinc. This is common in commercial galvanizing operations. Getting the zinc to properly wet out the steel is tricky, sometimes it does, sometimes it simply runs off. . Lots of flux, lots of heat and very dry, super clean metal seems to be the trick. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > has anyone ever done hot dipped galvanizing at home?? There does not seem to be anything on the internet--maybe looking in the wrong place?? From Wikipedia this chemical list came up. > In 1742, French chemist Paul Jacques Malouin described a method of coating iron by dipping it in molten zinc in a presentation to the French Royal Academy. In 1836, French chemist Stanislas Sorel obtained a patent for a method of coating iron with zinc, after first cleaning it with 9% sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and fluxing it with ammonium chloride (NH4Cl). > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24313|24298|2010-10-24 22:51:09|pendleton999|Re: DIY hot dipped galvanizing|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Tried it, with mixed results. A drop of water remaining from the flux resulted in an explosion which coated me with molten zinc. This is common in commercial galvanizing operations. Getting the zinc to properly wet out the steel is tricky, sometimes it does, sometimes it simply runs off. . Lots of flux, lots of heat and very dry, super clean metal seems to be the trick. > This is one of the reasons I love this group. It doesn't seem to matter what idea you might have - first ask Brent, he's probably tried it. - Amos| 24314|24245|2010-10-25 02:08:34|Keith Green|Re: Rough weather|I'm reading that book right now. They way it sounds, most of the guys in that first race didn't have a clue what they were in for. One guy went in a daysailer and loaded it down with all sorts of supplies he didn't need. Another in a giant tub made entirely of thick teak planks and built in India. One guy, though he'd rowed across the Atlantic, had never learned to sail: He had some friends hoist the sails and set them so he could get out of the harbour and planned on learning on the way. I'm about a third of the way through the book. Mr. Blythe's problems more than likely stemmed from his lack of experience and poor technique. I don't recall mention of a sea anchor or drogue on any of the boats yet. It's a bit of a tough read. You get inspired by the fact that these guys went at it without knowing what they were doing and still got pretty far. No radio worth talking about on several of them, a few didn't know how to navigate, no radar or weather reports. Keith On 10/23/2010 2:36 PM, Kim wrote: > You're right, Keith. It seems the Kingfisher 30's built from 1965 did have a rudder supported by a skeg. So an unusual or insufficient rudder setup was probably not the cause of his heavy-weather steering problems. > > It's interesting that, from Chay Blythe's review of this twin-keel boat at http://www.kyoa.org.uk/k30reviews.htm, he otherwise seemed extremely happy with it. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Keith Green wrote: > >> From the site you linked to for the picture: >> >> *Kingfisher 30 (Mk2) 1969 to 1978. Sail Numbers 19? to 67 >> * Full Skeg rudder, rudder shaft fitted through aft cabin, extra plates >> added to aft end of keels. Some modifications to later boats included >> the engine access plate through the cockpit sole >> >> *Kingfisher 30s 197x to 1978. Sail Numbers as K30 but with 'S' at the >> end of the number. Sail number 60's' is the oldest member number. >> * Taller mast and more ballast. Enclosed forecabin shelf. Dytiscus III >> was converted to an 's' by Kingfisher Yachts. >> >> The pic is of the earliest model, not Dysticus III. >> >> Kingfisher Yachts is here: http://www.kyoa.org.uk/index.htm >> >> There is a section with a writeup by Blythe and some pictures of >> the 30s model. >> >> Keith >> >> >> On 10/23/2010 4:32 AM, Kim wrote: >>> I too am very interested in this! I was going to put twin keels on my Swain 26; but I haven't reached that stage of construction yet so I could still do either twin keels or a single keel. >>> >>> A couple of points that come to mind ... >>> >>> 1) Chay Blythe's "Dytiscus III", that he used for the 1968 Golden Globe race, was a very early British-made Kingfisher 30. Here's a picture of one: http://tinyurl.com/kingfisher30. If he had a rudder that looked anything like that, then I'm not surprised that he had trouble steering! The twin keels may not have been the cause of his heavy-weather steering problems. >>> >>> 2) Sir Chay Blythe was a classic adventurer, and he was probably a pretty cool guy. Although he had earlier rowed across the Atlantic, when he started the Golden Globe race he apparently had zero sailing experience. This is how the London Sunday Times described the day of his start in the race (http://tinyurl.com/LondonSundayTimes and "A Voyage for Madmen" p45-50) ... >>> >>> " ... on 8 June, Chay Blyth followed suit --- despite having absolutely no sailing experience. On the day he sailed, he had friends rig the boat "Dytiscus" for him and then sail in front of him in another boat to show him the correct manoeuvres." >>> >>> I'm not for a minute trying to disparage Chay Blythe or anyone else; but did his alleged extraordinary lack of sailing experience when he started this race play a part in his heavy weather steering problems later in the race. Did he, for example, carry a drogue? Had he practiced using it? >>> >>> 3) I've never been anywhere near the Southern Ocean, and I don't plan on going there anytime soon! But almost everything I've ever read about heavy-weather sailing has suggested that shallow draft == good, and deep draft == bad. Some say that shallow-draft boats can be pushed sideways by big waves; but a keel boat would trip over her keel. I don't know if any of these assertions are true or not. >>> >>> Many, many years ago a mate of mine called John Glennie would often sail his very-shallow-draft plywood trimaran from Australia& New Zealand to various Pacific Islands. But rather than doing the long windward beat to get there, he would sail south until he was well into the Southern Ocean, turn left and travel East until he was under the island he wanted to visit, then he would turn left again and sail north to his destination. He said it was quicker that way!!! We all know that when big waves are photographed they look pretty small in the photo - but the photos he showed me that he took of Southern Ocean storm waves looked huge and bloody scary to me! Anyway, John would often say that he would have been toast many times if he had any sort of deep-keel boat in those conditions. (As an aside: about 18 or so years ago, in seas north of New Zealand, John did flip another trimaran he had, and lived on the upturned hull for 119 days! (http://tinyurl.com/JohnGlennie).) >>> >>> I really like the idea of bilge keels: easy hardstanding, reduced rolling, shallower draft, etc. I hope this discussion continues here! >>> >>> Cheers ... >>> >>> Kim. >>> My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht >>> ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > | 24315|24282|2010-10-25 03:36:18|Paul Wilson|Re: Heavy helm on steel Colin Archer|I knew someone with a Noon Ocean 34 that had extreme weather helm. It is a heavy displacement double ender with a full keel. It already had a bowsprit and had a lot of sail area. They tried raking the mast forward as much as they could and it helped but not until they cut the boom shorter by a couple of feet was the problem solved. Some people with boats with this problem sail with a reef in....not an ideal solution. Cheers, Paul On 10/25/2010 1:37 AM, Alan Boucher wrote: > > On 10/24/2010 8:28 AM, raykimbro wrote: > > > > Dumb question - but, would adding a trim tab help in this instance? > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > , "h" wrote: > > > > > > Ha, yeah balance the sails, I have that problem ALL the time though > > there has been some improvement since last year.... > > > I'll swing by and say hi on my way up to Comox in a few weeks. > > > > > > > > > > > >My 120 pound wife has difficulty with a heavy helm, requires > > > > much > > > > >effort on the tiller even in 30 knots with a reefed main and small > > > > jib. > > > > > > > > > > > > An even more extreme approach is to modify the rudder to a NACA > symmetrical lifting airfoil. I replaced the rudder on a gaff rigged > Hudson river sloop which was originally staves of 2" oak with an > approximately 6" thick airfoil. The weather helm on a beam reach > completely disappeared. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3217 - Release Date: 10/25/10 07:34:00 > | 24316|24245|2010-10-25 04:10:34|Paul Wilson|Re: Rough weather|>>>>>A Kiwi wrote a book about his trip down there in a 36 ft wooden twin keeler. I believe the boat may have been named Totorore. He was very hapy with his twin keelr in the southern ocean. His name was Gerry Clark and the book is called The Totorore Voyage. He was a complete nutter in my opinion. I bought his book after seeing him give a slide-show in Vancouver years ago which was very, very entertaining. The book wasn't as good as the show but it was interesting all the same. He was dis-masted more than once and rolled over more than once. It was amazing (or crazy) that he sailed in the southern ocean in the winter time in such a small boat. His luck eventually ran out and he disappeared on the boat in 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Clark http://www.ranui.co.nz/totorore.html Cheers, Paul| 24317|24282|2010-10-25 05:14:39|martin demers|Re: Heavy helm on steel Colin Archer|I want to install a short mast gaff rig with a very long boom on my steel classic, could that be hard on the rudder? Martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: opusnz@... > Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:36:14 +1300 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Heavy helm on steel Colin Archer > > I knew someone with a Noon Ocean 34 that had extreme weather helm. It is > a heavy displacement double ender with a full keel. It already had a > bowsprit and had a lot of sail area. They tried raking the mast forward > as much as they could and it helped but not until they cut the boom > shorter by a couple of feet was the problem solved. Some people with > boats with this problem sail with a reef in....not an ideal solution. > > Cheers, Paul > > > On 10/25/2010 1:37 AM, Alan Boucher wrote: > > > > On 10/24/2010 8:28 AM, raykimbro wrote: > > > > > > Dumb question - but, would adding a trim tab help in this instance? > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > , "h" wrote: > > > > > > > > Ha, yeah balance the sails, I have that problem ALL the time though > > > there has been some improvement since last year.... > > > > I'll swing by and say hi on my way up to Comox in a few weeks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >My 120 pound wife has difficulty with a heavy helm, requires > > > > > much > > > > > >effort on the tiller even in 30 knots with a reefed main and small > > > > > jib. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An even more extreme approach is to modify the rudder to a NACA > > symmetrical lifting airfoil. I replaced the rudder on a gaff rigged > > Hudson river sloop which was originally staves of 2" oak with an > > approximately 6" thick airfoil. The weather helm on a beam reach > > completely disappeared. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3217 - Release Date: 10/25/10 07:34:00 > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24318|24282|2010-10-25 15:08:53|Paul Wilson|Re: Heavy helm on steel Colin Archer|>>>I want to install a short mast gaff rig with a very long boom on my steel classic, could that be hard on the rudder? Martin. A longer boom with a gaff will shift the center of effort aft and cause more weather helm. A shorter rig will reduce weather helm since the boat heels less. More weight aloft will make the boat heel more......etc, etc, etc. As you can see, it gets complicated and there are no easy answers. Experience with the design is the best teacher and experience also normally says don't change things without talking to the designer first or asking someone who has done it before. Personally, if the design was balanced before, I wouldn't make any changes that shift the center of effort. I am not a fan of gaff rigs. If you put a gaff rig on, it will be almost impossible to find used sails for it and you are adding more complexity. Sorry I can't help more, Paul| 24319|24298|2010-10-25 15:16:31|brentswain38|Re: DIY hot dipped galvanizing|The big hassle is getting it to the lower mainland then reaching the minimum order. Usually we all put our stuff together and send it all in at once. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > Thanks for your observations--I had quite a bit galvanizing done--in Calgary Alberta and then some small bits were done for beer. There aren't any plants on Vancouver Island and the last time I had something done in Richmond BC they tried to overcharge me (I weighed it before it went in) MarkH > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24320|24282|2010-10-25 15:22:37|brentswain38|Re: Heavy helm on steel Colin Archer|I can offset any helm by locking my trim tab slightly off centre, until it becomes neutral. Some hook up a tiny tiller on top of the big one, hooked to the trim tab, which lets you steer with a little finger using the trimtab tiller. My book shows this arrangement. The Sayes Rig has a trim tab over the stern, for inboard rudders which are close enough to the stern. The trim tab loops thru a bracket on the trailing edge of the rudder. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "raykimbro" wrote: > > Dumb question - but, would adding a trim tab help in this instance? > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > > > Ha, yeah balance the sails, I have that problem ALL the time though there has been some improvement since last year.... > > I'll swing by and say hi on my way up to Comox in a few weeks. > > > > > > > > >My 120 pound wife has difficulty with a heavy helm, requires > > > much > > > >effort on the tiller even in 30 knots with a reefed main and small > > > jib. > > > > > > | 24321|24245|2010-10-25 15:27:28|brentswain38|Re: Rough weather|The most common steering problems with beginners, is not easing the sheets nor vanging down the mainsail, when running downwind. This is probably the source of Blyths problems. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Keith Green wrote: > > > I'm reading that book right now. They way it sounds, most of > the guys in that first race didn't have a clue what they were in for. > One guy went in a daysailer and loaded it down with all sorts of > supplies he didn't need. Another in a giant tub made entirely of thick > teak planks and built in India. One guy, though he'd rowed across the > Atlantic, had never learned to sail: He had some friends hoist the sails > and set them so he could get out of the harbour and planned on learning > on the way. > I'm about a third of the way through the book. Mr. Blythe's > problems more than likely stemmed from his lack of experience and poor > technique. I don't recall mention of a sea anchor or drogue on any of > the boats yet. > It's a bit of a tough read. You get inspired by the fact that > these guys went at it without knowing what they were doing and still got > pretty far. No radio worth talking about on several of them, a few > didn't know how to navigate, no radar or weather reports. > > > > > > Keith > > On 10/23/2010 2:36 PM, Kim wrote: > > You're right, Keith. It seems the Kingfisher 30's built from 1965 did have a rudder supported by a skeg. So an unusual or insufficient rudder setup was probably not the cause of his heavy-weather steering problems. > > > > It's interesting that, from Chay Blythe's review of this twin-keel boat at http://www.kyoa.org.uk/k30reviews.htm, he otherwise seemed extremely happy with it. > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Keith Green wrote: > > > >> From the site you linked to for the picture: > >> > >> *Kingfisher 30 (Mk2) 1969 to 1978. Sail Numbers 19? to 67 > >> * Full Skeg rudder, rudder shaft fitted through aft cabin, extra plates > >> added to aft end of keels. Some modifications to later boats included > >> the engine access plate through the cockpit sole > >> > >> *Kingfisher 30s 197x to 1978. Sail Numbers as K30 but with 'S' at the > >> end of the number. Sail number 60's' is the oldest member number. > >> * Taller mast and more ballast. Enclosed forecabin shelf. Dytiscus III > >> was converted to an 's' by Kingfisher Yachts. > >> > >> The pic is of the earliest model, not Dysticus III. > >> > >> Kingfisher Yachts is here: http://www.kyoa.org.uk/index.htm > >> > >> There is a section with a writeup by Blythe and some pictures of > >> the 30s model. > >> > >> Keith > >> > >> > >> On 10/23/2010 4:32 AM, Kim wrote: > >>> I too am very interested in this! I was going to put twin keels on my Swain 26; but I haven't reached that stage of construction yet so I could still do either twin keels or a single keel. > >>> > >>> A couple of points that come to mind ... > >>> > >>> 1) Chay Blythe's "Dytiscus III", that he used for the 1968 Golden Globe race, was a very early British-made Kingfisher 30. Here's a picture of one: http://tinyurl.com/kingfisher30. If he had a rudder that looked anything like that, then I'm not surprised that he had trouble steering! The twin keels may not have been the cause of his heavy-weather steering problems. > >>> > >>> 2) Sir Chay Blythe was a classic adventurer, and he was probably a pretty cool guy. Although he had earlier rowed across the Atlantic, when he started the Golden Globe race he apparently had zero sailing experience. This is how the London Sunday Times described the day of his start in the race (http://tinyurl.com/LondonSundayTimes and "A Voyage for Madmen" p45-50) ... > >>> > >>> " ... on 8 June, Chay Blyth followed suit --- despite having absolutely no sailing experience. On the day he sailed, he had friends rig the boat "Dytiscus" for him and then sail in front of him in another boat to show him the correct manoeuvres." > >>> > >>> I'm not for a minute trying to disparage Chay Blythe or anyone else; but did his alleged extraordinary lack of sailing experience when he started this race play a part in his heavy weather steering problems later in the race. Did he, for example, carry a drogue? Had he practiced using it? > >>> > >>> 3) I've never been anywhere near the Southern Ocean, and I don't plan on going there anytime soon! But almost everything I've ever read about heavy-weather sailing has suggested that shallow draft == good, and deep draft == bad. Some say that shallow-draft boats can be pushed sideways by big waves; but a keel boat would trip over her keel. I don't know if any of these assertions are true or not. > >>> > >>> Many, many years ago a mate of mine called John Glennie would often sail his very-shallow-draft plywood trimaran from Australia& New Zealand to various Pacific Islands. But rather than doing the long windward beat to get there, he would sail south until he was well into the Southern Ocean, turn left and travel East until he was under the island he wanted to visit, then he would turn left again and sail north to his destination. He said it was quicker that way!!! We all know that when big waves are photographed they look pretty small in the photo - but the photos he showed me that he took of Southern Ocean storm waves looked huge and bloody scary to me! Anyway, John would often say that he would have been toast many times if he had any sort of deep-keel boat in those conditions. (As an aside: about 18 or so years ago, in seas north of New Zealand, John did flip another trimaran he had, and lived on the upturned hull for 119 days! (http://tinyurl.com/JohnGlennie).) > >>> > >>> I really like the idea of bilge keels: easy hardstanding, reduced rolling, shallower draft, etc. I hope this discussion continues here! > >>> > >>> Cheers ... > >>> > >>> Kim. > >>> My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > >>> ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > | 24322|24282|2010-10-25 15:32:53|brentswain38|Re: Heavy helm on steel Colin Archer|When Huntingford designed that boat he said he went for deep forefoot, so it would heave to well. All it wanted to do was heave to, whether you wanted it to or not. Huntingford once told me that if I went for four inch bulwarks , it would hold a layer of water four inches deep, over the entire deck, when I was heeled 30 degrees going to windward! Duhh! Look for practical common sense when choosing a designer, not a numbers jugler. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > I knew someone with a Noon Ocean 34 that had extreme weather helm. It is > a heavy displacement double ender with a full keel. It already had a > bowsprit and had a lot of sail area. They tried raking the mast forward > as much as they could and it helped but not until they cut the boom > shorter by a couple of feet was the problem solved. Some people with > boats with this problem sail with a reef in....not an ideal solution. > > Cheers, Paul > > > On 10/25/2010 1:37 AM, Alan Boucher wrote: > > > > On 10/24/2010 8:28 AM, raykimbro wrote: > > > > > > Dumb question - but, would adding a trim tab help in this instance? > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > , "h" wrote: > > > > > > > > Ha, yeah balance the sails, I have that problem ALL the time though > > > there has been some improvement since last year.... > > > > I'll swing by and say hi on my way up to Comox in a few weeks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >My 120 pound wife has difficulty with a heavy helm, requires > > > > > much > > > > > >effort on the tiller even in 30 knots with a reefed main and small > > > > > jib. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An even more extreme approach is to modify the rudder to a NACA > > symmetrical lifting airfoil. I replaced the rudder on a gaff rigged > > Hudson river sloop which was originally staves of 2" oak with an > > approximately 6" thick airfoil. The weather helm on a beam reach > > completely disappeared. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3217 - Release Date: 10/25/10 07:34:00 > > > | 24323|24282|2010-10-25 16:39:15|Alan Boucher|Re: Heavy helm on steel Colin Archer|On 10/25/2010 3:08 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > > >>>I want to install a short mast gaff rig with a very long boom on my > steel classic, could that be hard on the rudder? > Martin. > > A longer boom with a gaff will shift the center of effort aft and cause > more weather helm. A shorter rig will reduce weather helm since the > boat heels less. More weight aloft will make the boat heel > more......etc, etc, etc. As you can see, it gets complicated and there > are no easy answers. Experience with the design is the best teacher > and experience also normally says don't change things without talking to > the designer first or asking someone who has done it before. > Personally, if the design was balanced before, I wouldn't make any > changes that shift the center of effort. I am not a fan of gaff rigs. > If you put a gaff rig on, it will be almost impossible to find used > sails for it and you are adding more complexity. > > Sorry I can't help more, Paul > > See my earlier comments on rudder modifications to Hudson River gaff rigged sloops. Also look at any of the pictures around of some of the old English gaffers. Photos of one of these boats on a beam reach will usually show the helmsman as close to the rail as he gen get holding on to the tiller with all his strength. I solved this on one 34' Hudson river sloop with a lifting rudder. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24324|24282|2010-10-25 19:45:11|John Riehl|Re: Heavy helm on steel Colin Archer|You might also look at how well trimmed fore and aft she is.  If she's bow-heavy, her CLR will be forward and she'll develop weather helm. ________________________________ From: Paul Wilson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, October 25, 2010 3:08:46 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Heavy helm on steel Colin Archer   >>>I want to install a short mast gaff rig with a very long boom on my steel classic, could that be hard on the rudder? Martin. A longer boom with a gaff will shift the center of effort aft and cause more weather helm. A shorter rig will reduce weather helm since the boat heels less. More weight aloft will make the boat heel more......etc, etc, etc. As you can see, it gets complicated and there are no easy answers. Experience with the design is the best teacher and experience also normally says don't change things without talking to the designer first or asking someone who has done it before. Personally, if the design was balanced before, I wouldn't make any changes that shift the center of effort. I am not a fan of gaff rigs. If you put a gaff rig on, it will be almost impossible to find used sails for it and you are adding more complexity. Sorry I can't help more, Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24325|24282|2010-10-25 21:20:36|martin demers|Re: Heavy helm on steel Colin Archer|I bought the boat without any rigging, so I start from scratch. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: riehlj2002@... Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:45:01 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Heavy helm on steel Colin Archer You might also look at how well trimmed fore and aft she is. If she's bow-heavy, her CLR will be forward and she'll develop weather helm. ________________________________ From: Paul Wilson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, October 25, 2010 3:08:46 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Heavy helm on steel Colin Archer >>>I want to install a short mast gaff rig with a very long boom on my steel classic, could that be hard on the rudder? Martin. A longer boom with a gaff will shift the center of effort aft and cause more weather helm. A shorter rig will reduce weather helm since the boat heels less. More weight aloft will make the boat heel more......etc, etc, etc. As you can see, it gets complicated and there are no easy answers. Experience with the design is the best teacher and experience also normally says don't change things without talking to the designer first or asking someone who has done it before. Personally, if the design was balanced before, I wouldn't make any changes that shift the center of effort. I am not a fan of gaff rigs. If you put a gaff rig on, it will be almost impossible to find used sails for it and you are adding more complexity. Sorry I can't help more, Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24326|24245|2010-10-25 22:22:36|Lindsay|Re: Rough weather|I remember this guy,he was one guy that should have owned a steal boat given his choice of cruising grounds.I think his boat was double diagonal over stringers if my memory serves me correctly,flush deck.He sold off ever more pieces of his farm to finance his trips much to the chagrin of his long suffering wife.It was a sad end for two men and generated much debate here as there was no storm or large boats in that area at that time.Thanks for the memory promt. headonz ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Wilson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 9:10 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Rough weather >>>>>A Kiwi wrote a book about his trip down there in a 36 ft wooden twin keeler. I believe the boat may have been named Totorore. He was very hapy with his twin keelr in the southern ocean. His name was Gerry Clark and the book is called The Totorore Voyage. He was a complete nutter in my opinion. I bought his book after seeing him give a slide-show in Vancouver years ago which was very, very entertaining. The book wasn't as good as the show but it was interesting all the same. He was dis-masted more than once and rolled over more than once. It was amazing (or crazy) that he sailed in the southern ocean in the winter time in such a small boat. His luck eventually ran out and he disappeared on the boat in 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Clark http://www.ranui.co.nz/totorore.html Cheers, Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24327|24327|2010-10-26 07:00:43|Carl Andersen|A metric inch and foot|Hi I have bought drawings to BS 31, but before I starts building the boat, I will have clarified something. Is a Canadian inch (25.4 mm) Is a Canadian foot (30,48 cm) Regards, Carl Andersen http://da.flying-cloud.dk/| 24328|24327|2010-10-26 09:37:34|Shane Duncan|Re: A metric inch and foot|Carl i have just built a 31 in Perth don't know about the Canadian inch but the Australian inch is  (25.4 mm) ha ha i have converted the plans onto CAD got all my plat CNC plasma cut didnt cost too much and saved a shi*t load of time was only 1.5mm out at the transom if your interested   cheers shane --- On Tue, 26/10/10, Carl Andersen wrote: From: Carl Andersen Subject: [origamiboats] A metric inch and foot To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Tuesday, 26 October, 2010, 11:00 AM   Hi I have bought drawings to BS 31, but before I  starts building the boat, I will have clarified something. Is a Canadian inch (25.4 mm) Is a Canadian foot (30,48 cm) Regards, Carl Andersen http://da.flying-cloud.dk/ ------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24329|24327|2010-10-26 11:48:43|h|Re: A metric inch and foot|yes it's a international standard measure, accepted in both the US and Canada and other place where they don't use the metric system. - In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Carl Andersen wrote: > > Hi > I have bought drawings to BS 31, but before I starts building the boat, > I will have clarified something. > > Is a Canadian inch (25.4 mm) > Is a Canadian foot (30,48 cm) > > Regards, > Carl Andersen > http://da.flying-cloud.dk/ > | 24330|24327|2010-10-26 12:54:43|Carl Andersen|Re: A metric inch and foot|Den 26-10-2010 17:48, h skrev: > > yes it's a international standard measure, accepted in both the US and > Canada and other place where they don't use the metric system. > > - > Thanks Carl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24331|24327|2010-10-26 14:32:28|brentswain38|Re: A metric inch and foot|Carl What you need is a Canadian tape measure, which has both inches and metric on it. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Carl Andersen wrote: > > Hi > I have bought drawings to BS 31, but before I starts building the boat, > I will have clarified something. > > Is a Canadian inch (25.4 mm) > Is a Canadian foot (30,48 cm) > > Regards, > Carl Andersen > http://da.flying-cloud.dk/ > | 24332|24327|2010-10-26 14:42:46|Carl Andersen|Re: A metric inch and foot|Den 26-10-2010 20:32, brentswain38 skrev: > > Carl > What you need is a Canadian tape measure, which has both inches and > metric on it. > > -- > > Yes that makes it of course much easier Regards, Carl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24333|24327|2010-10-26 14:48:56|Carl Andersen|Re: A metric inch and foot|Den 26-10-2010 15:37, Shane Duncan skrev: > > Carl > i have just built a 31 in Perth > don't know about the Canadian inch > but the Australian inch is (25.4 mm) ha ha > i have converted the plans onto CAD > got all my plat CNC plasma cut didnt cost too much > and saved a shi*t load of time > was only 1.5mm out at the transom > if your interested > > cheers > shane > Hi Shane Yes I am interested in your CAD files, You can contact me at carl@... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24334|24327|2010-10-26 14:51:58|Mark Hamill|Re: A metric inch and foot|Excellent idea about the tape--there are also hand held calculators--but this may be over kill and one could find one cheaper locally?? http://www.calculatorsource.com/sk-1step.html ----- Original Message ----- From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:32 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: A metric inch and foot Carl What you need is a Canadian tape measure, which has both inches and metric on it. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Carl Andersen wrote: > > Hi > I have bought drawings to BS 31, but before I starts building the boat, > I will have clarified something. > > Is a Canadian inch (25.4 mm) > Is a Canadian foot (30,48 cm) > > Regards, > Carl Andersen > http://da.flying-cloud.dk/ > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24335|24298|2010-10-26 18:13:44|Mark Hamill|Re: DIY hot dipped galvanizing|well, the neighbors are already upset with my combo DIY nuclear plant and self serve crematorium so I think i'll not do the galvanizing--but thanks for the info--I now know a bit more. All the best, MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Malone" To: Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 6:24 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: DIY hot dipped galvanizing > > > I have inspected a couple of galvanizing plants. I believe the last thing > before the molten zinc is Zinc-Ammonium-Chloride. It is a greasy paste > that I am certain is the flux. Before that, they clean the steel with > NaOH then H2SO4. Don't know the concentrations. Don't know how much of > the Zn-Nh4-Cl they put on. > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 23:01:43 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: DIY hot dipped galvanizing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tried it, with mixed results. A drop of water remaining from the flux > resulted in an explosion which coated me with molten zinc. This is common > in commercial galvanizing operations. Getting the zinc to properly wet out > the steel is tricky, sometimes it does, sometimes it simply runs off. . > Lots of flux, lots of heat and very dry, super clean metal seems to be the > trick. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > >> > >> has anyone ever done hot dipped galvanizing at home?? There does not seem >> to be anything on the internet--maybe looking in the wrong place?? From >> Wikipedia this chemical list came up. > >> In 1742, French chemist Paul Jacques Malouin described a method of >> coating iron by dipping it in molten zinc in a presentation to the French >> Royal Academy. In 1836, French chemist Stanislas Sorel obtained a patent >> for a method of coating iron with zinc, after first cleaning it with 9% >> sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and fluxing it with ammonium chloride (NH4Cl). > >> > >> > >> > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24336|24327|2010-10-26 21:12:28|Ben Okopnik|Re: A metric inch and foot|On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 08:48:38PM +0200, Carl Andersen wrote: > Den 26-10-2010 15:37, Shane Duncan skrev: > > > > Carl > > i have just built a 31 in Perth > > don't know about the Canadian inch > > but the Australian inch is (25.4 mm) ha ha > > i have converted the plans onto CAD > > got all my plat CNC plasma cut didnt cost too much > > and saved a shi*t load of time > > was only 1.5mm out at the transom > > if your interested > > > > cheers > > shane > > > Hi Shane > Yes I am interested in your CAD files, You can contact me at > carl@... Why not post those files to the "Files" section of this group and make them available to everybody? I'm sure that a number of people would find them useful. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24337|24298|2010-10-26 21:27:11|Ben Okopnik|Re: DIY hot dipped galvanizing|On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 03:13:51PM -0700, Mark Hamill wrote: > well, the neighbors are already upset with my combo DIY nuclear plant and > self serve crematorium so I think i'll not do the galvanizing--but thanks > for the info--I now know a bit more. Waitaminit, now. If you've already got a reactor, then - forget galvanizing; just line the outside of the hull with your spent fuel rods, and you won't even need antifouling paint, much less galvanizing. So you might grow a third arm and a couple of extra eyes... they'll come in really handy when you're welding in tight places, believe me! Plus, you'll always be able to make a living wherever you go - circuses are always short on qualified performers. (I heard they lost a midget the other day - fired him out of a cannon and into a brick wall. [sigh] They won't come across a performer of his caliber anytime soon...) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com| 24338|24338|2010-10-27 10:42:03|Shane Duncan|Re: CAD files CNC plasma cutting|Carl I’m happy to give them to Brent Then if someone buys his plans, he can send them a CD with CAD files on them. It would be pretty cheeky of me to sell them considering I didn’t designer her Cheers shane --- On Tue, 26/10/10, Carl andersen wrote: From: Carl andersen Subject: Re: [origamiboats] A metric inch and foot To: shaneduncan206@... Received: Tuesday, 26 October, 2010, 4:55 PM Hi Shane Yes I am interested in your CAD files, what is the price for them. Regards, Carl Andersen   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24339|24338|2010-10-27 12:09:33|Carl Andersen|Re: CAD files CNC plasma cutting|That sounds reasonable, I hope that Brent will sell them cheaply to me, since I have bought the plans to BS31 :) Carl Andersen --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Shane Duncan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Carl > I’m happy to give them to Brent > Then if someone buys his plans, he can send them a CD with > CAD files on them. It would be pretty cheeky of me to sell them > considering I didn’t designer her > Cheers > shane > > --- On Tue, 26/10/10, Carl andersen wrote: > > > From: Carl andersen > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] A metric inch and foot > To: shaneduncan206@... > Received: Tuesday, 26 October, 2010, 4:55 PM > > > Hi Shane > Yes I am interested in your CAD files, what is the price for them. > > Regards, > > Carl Andersen > >   > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24340|24338|2010-10-27 12:37:14|h|Re: CAD files CNC plasma cutting|I hope so he's kinda a rich man these days now that he's getting his canada pension. Another forty years for me though..... --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Andersen" wrote: > > That sounds reasonable, I hope that Brent will sell them cheaply to me, since I have bought the plans to BS31 :) > > Carl Andersen > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Shane Duncan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carl > > I’m happy to give them to Brent > > Then if someone buys his plans, he can send them a CD with > > CAD files on them. It would be pretty cheeky of me to sell them > > considering I didn’t designer her > > Cheers > > shane > > > > --- On Tue, 26/10/10, Carl andersen wrote: > > > > > > From: Carl andersen > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] A metric inch and foot > > To: shaneduncan206@ > > Received: Tuesday, 26 October, 2010, 4:55 PM > > > > > > Hi Shane > > Yes I am interested in your CAD files, what is the price for them. > > > > Regards, > > > > Carl Andersen > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 24341|24338|2010-10-27 18:13:47|kingsknight4life|Re: CAD files CNC plasma cutting|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > I hope so he's kinda a rich man these days now that he's getting his canada pension. Another forty years for me though..... > LOL. Haidan, that's SO true. I remember him telling me about his soon to be expected windfall. I expect to see him come paddling down the North Saskatchewan river for a visit next summer. Rowland| 24342|23755|2010-10-27 22:03:43|wild_explorer|Re: Origamiboat modeling (3D, pattern, model)|For people who wants to know about the difference in stability of flash-deck vs. cabin/wheelhouse hull, I put Stability Curves (JPEG files) in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/Origami_hulls_and_stability/ This is just confirms what Brent said about advantages of cabin/wheelhouse. These curves are for simplified 3D model, made relatively close to Brent's type of sailboat(not for real BrentBoat). You should be able to see effect of these 2 options on boat stability...| 24343|23755|2010-10-28 09:48:16|Carl Anderson|update on out website|For anyone interested we have updated the narrative about our trip around the island last summer. Carl sv-mom.com| 24344|24338|2010-10-29 01:15:39|Shane Duncan|Re: CAD files CNC plasma cutting|Carl   i cant see any problems sending you the cad files since you have already paid for the plans trust me you are going to need all the help you can get more than happy to help you any way possible   where are you based? when do you intend to build?   cheers shane   --- On Wed, 27/10/10, Carl Andersen wrote: From: Carl Andersen Subject: [origamiboats] Re: CAD files CNC plasma cutting To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Wednesday, 27 October, 2010, 4:09 PM That sounds reasonable, I hope that Brent will sell them cheaply to me, since I have bought the plans to BS31 :) Carl Andersen --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Shane Duncan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Carl > I’m happy to give them to Brent > Then if someone buys his plans, he can send them a CD with > CAD files on them. It would be pretty cheeky of me to sell them > considering I didn’t designer her > Cheers > shane > > --- On Tue, 26/10/10, Carl andersen wrote: > > > From: Carl andersen > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] A metric inch and foot > To: shaneduncan206@... > Received: Tuesday, 26 October, 2010, 4:55 PM > > > Hi Shane > Yes I am interested in your CAD files, what is the price for them. > > Regards, > > Carl Andersen > >   > > >        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > ------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24345|23755|2010-10-29 10:25:27|Matt Malone|Re: update on out website|Excellent website. The youtube clip of towing a Brent boat is funny. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: cwa@... Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:48:12 -0600 Subject: [origamiboats] update on out website For anyone interested we have updated the narrative about our trip around the island last summer. Carl sv-mom.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24346|24338|2010-10-29 12:01:02|Carl Andersen|Re: CAD files CNC plasma cutting|Thanks Shane It will be fine if you want to send them to me. I live in Denmark. The easiest will probably be if you send an email to me where you give me a Swift code so that I can transfer money for the CD to your bank account to send the files to me. I expect starting to build the boat in March, April 2011. Regards, Carl Andersen Den 29-10-2010 07:15, Shane Duncan skrev: > > Carl > > i cant see any problems sending you the cad files since you have > already paid for the plans > trust me you are going to need all the help you can get > more than happy to help you any way possible > > where are you based? > when do you intend to build? > > cheers > shane > > > --- On Wed, 27/10/10, Carl Andersen > wrote: > > From: Carl Andersen > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: CAD files CNC plasma cutting > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Wednesday, 27 October, 2010, 4:09 PM > > That sounds reasonable, I hope that Brent will sell them cheaply to > me, since I have bought the plans to BS31 :) > > Carl Andersen > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Shane Duncan > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carl > > I’m happy to give them to Brent > > Then if someone buys his plans, he can send them a CD with > > CAD files on them. It would be pretty cheeky of me to sell them > > considering I didn’t designer her > > Cheers > > shane > > > > --- On Tue, 26/10/10, Carl andersen wrote: > > > > > > From: Carl andersen > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] A metric inch and foot > > To: shaneduncan206@... > > Received: Tuesday, 26 October, 2010, 4:55 PM > > > > > > Hi Shane > > Yes I am interested in your CAD files, what is the price for them. > > > > Regards, > > > > Carl Andersen > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo > ! Groups Links > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24347|24338|2010-10-29 12:06:59|Carl Andersen|Re: CAD files CNC plasma cutting|Den 29-10-2010 07:15, Shane Duncan skrev: > > Carl > > i cant see any problems sending you the cad files since you have > already paid for the plans > trust me you are going to need all the help you can get > more than happy to help you any way possible > > where are you based? > when do you intend to build? > > cheers > shane > > > --- On Wed, 27/10/10, Carl Andersen > wrote: > > From: Carl Andersen > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: CAD files CNC plasma cutting > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Wednesday, 27 October, 2010, 4:09 PM > > That sounds reasonable, I hope that Brent will sell them cheaply to > me, since I have bought the plans to BS31 :) > > Carl Andersen > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Shane Duncan > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carl > > I’m happy to give them to Brent > > Then if someone buys his plans, he can send them a CD with > > CAD files on them. It would be pretty cheeky of me to sell them > > considering I didn’t designer her > > Cheers > > shane > > > > --- On Tue, 26/10/10, Carl andersen wrote: > > > > > > From: Carl andersen > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] A metric inch and foot > > To: shaneduncan206@... > > Received: Tuesday, 26 October, 2010, 4:55 PM > > > > > > Hi Shane > > Yes I am interested in your CAD files, what is the price for them. > > > > Regards, > > > > Carl Andersen > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo > ! Groups Links > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24348|23755|2010-10-29 15:27:50|h|Re: update on out website|So far that's the fastest my boat has traveled over the ground. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Excellent website. The youtube clip of towing a Brent boat is funny. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: cwa@... > Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:48:12 -0600 > Subject: [origamiboats] update on out website > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For anyone interested we have updated the narrative about our trip > > around the island last summer. > > > > Carl > > sv-mom.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24349|24327|2010-10-29 16:38:28|brentswain38|Re: A metric inch and foot|Because that would be copyright infringement and kill my livlihood. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 08:48:38PM +0200, Carl Andersen wrote: > > Den 26-10-2010 15:37, Shane Duncan skrev: > > > > > > Carl > > > i have just built a 31 in Perth > > > don't know about the Canadian inch > > > but the Australian inch is (25.4 mm) ha ha > > > i have converted the plans onto CAD > > > got all my plat CNC plasma cut didnt cost too much > > > and saved a shi*t load of time > > > was only 1.5mm out at the transom > > > if your interested > > > > > > cheers > > > shane > > > > > Hi Shane > > Yes I am interested in your CAD files, You can contact me at > > carl@... > > Why not post those files to the "Files" section of this group and make > them available to everybody? I'm sure that a number of people would find > them useful. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com > | 24350|24338|2010-10-29 16:41:06|brentswain38|Re: CAD files CNC plasma cutting|Four more years till full pension. Then I won't give a rat's ass about money and plan to do some paddling, etc. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "kingsknight4life" wrote: > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > > > I hope so he's kinda a rich man these days now that he's getting his canada pension. Another forty years for me though..... > > > LOL. Haidan, that's SO true. I remember him telling me about his soon to be expected windfall. I expect to see him come paddling down the North Saskatchewan river for a visit next summer. > Rowland > | 24351|24327|2010-10-29 16:42:22|Ben Okopnik|Re: A metric inch and foot|On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 08:38:26PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > Because that would be copyright infringement and kill my livlihood. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > Why not post those files to the "Files" section of this group and make > > them available to everybody? I'm sure that a number of people would find > > them useful. I realized from later discussion that these files referred to the entire design; I thought it was just some small, complicated part of the layout. I really wasn't trying to take your livelihood away, Brent. :) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24352|24352|2010-10-29 16:44:17|brentswain38|Dinghy and Kayak stabilisers|If you tie a midship line from your dinghy or Kayak , tight to the dock,or boat, before getting out, then you can put all the weight you want on that side, with no fear of capsize.| 24353|24352|2010-10-29 17:38:08|john dean|Re: Dinghy and Kayak stabilisers|Hello Brent Did you ever get your Al dinkey back. John --- On Fri, 10/29/10, brentswain38 wrote: > From: brentswain38 > Subject: [origamiboats] Dinghy and Kayak stabilisers > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Friday, October 29, 2010, 4:44 PM > If you tie a midship line from > your  dinghy or Kayak , tight to the dock,or > boat,  before getting out, then you can put all the > weight you want on that side, with no fear of capsize. > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! > Groups Links > > >     origamiboats-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > > | 24354|24354|2010-10-30 00:26:35|akenai|Infurling Mast|Anyone ever use an infurlin mast? I now have one and am looking for ideas as I slowly build my boat and collect parts. Aaron| 24355|24354|2010-10-30 11:55:12|martin|Infurling Mast|Aaron I've chartered several boats with that set-up and for inshore sailing It worked as advertised. When I enquired as to what to do if the need for a fast reduction in sail happend and it jammed they didn't have any real remedy. The only thing I could see would be to let the sail loose and beat it's self to death as you fought to bring it under some form of control. With in boom you can at least release the halyard. Maybe others have experience and solutions. Martin. (Prairie Maid)| 24356|24354|2010-10-30 15:57:17|Aaron Williams|Re: Infurling Mast|Martin  Did the mast have the add on type furling or was it all one unit?   This system sure looks simple compaired to reefing and all of the extra lines it takes. I have the Performance model http://www.sparcraft.com/uk/products/masts/furling_masts/recommendations/default.asp ________________________________ From: martin To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, October 30, 2010 7:55:09 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Infurling Mast   Aaron I've chartered several boats with that set-up and for inshore sailing It worked as advertised. When I enquired as to what to do if the need for a fast reduction in sail happend and it jammed they didn't have any real remedy. The only thing I could see would be to let the sail loose and beat it's self to death as you fought to bring it under some form of control. With in boom you can at least release the halyard. Maybe others have experience and solutions. Martin. (Prairie Maid) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24357|24357|2010-10-30 17:22:04|martin|In the Mast furling|The ones that I used were factory set ups with all the workings inside the mast. They worked just like a roller furler on a head sail. The first time I saw one in use we were sailing as a group for lessons and one of the barvarians had it. We were on a C+C with hank on everything and 11 winches. We could sail circles around all the other boats in the group in any wind condition but when we headed into a port they were through their first cold one at the pub and we were still dealing with sails. I have to admit the ones I've used were sweet. I just don't know how you handle a jammed up system when you are in desperate need of reefing. Not a situation I would want to be in when land is not in sight and the waves and wind are getting worse. Maybe one of the more experienced sailors in the group has had some first hand knowledge of that happening. Martin (Prairie Maid)| 24358|24357|2010-10-31 10:00:53|Matt Malone|Re: In the Mast furling|In-mast furling leaves 100% of the weight of the sail up on the mast. When it gets wet, 100% of the weight of a wet sail is up the mast. It requires the mast to have a slot in it. Take two pieces of 1.5" or 2" plastic abs plumbing pipe. Run one through the saw to cut a slot in it. Now mount the bottom of each and see how stiff they are as a mast. The lateral stiffness of the one with the slot is greatly reduced because it has lost the advantage of "shear flow" in a closed section. Yes, lateral is the direction stiffened by the spreaders and stays. But now you need more weight in spreaders and stays, or more weight in the structure of the mast. Add that to the weight of a wet sail, and that is a lot of weight aloft. Would a radar ray-dome at the top of the mast be more or less weight ? What would be safer? Better information or more convenient furling ? In-boom furling, or old-fashioned around-the boom furling, or lazy jacks and slab furling gets the weight down off the mast, close to deck level. Getting the weight low helps the boat. Having the weight high all the time at anchor would have the effect of increasing the pitch and roll moments of inertia of the boat and would tend to calm the motion of the boat. So this system best suits getting to a comfortable post-sail-drinks-on-the-after-deck state. I say without a hint of sarcasm that some members of the sailing crew of most all boats would rate that most highly, and since the rest of us rely on their enjoying themselves while sailing, this cannot be overlooked. But it is easy to put weight up high if that is the effect one wants. Having one large vinyl fender 3/4 filled with water and running it up the main halyard to a few feet of the top would do about the same thing. And if one is using furling as reefing, the exposed sail area geometry is exactly the same whether is it mast or boom reefing, except that the luff of the sail is always exposed in boom reefing, whereas the part closest to the mast in mast reefing is closer and closer to the leech as one reefs. The difference is, the luff of a sail is usually the power shape of the airfoil. The leech is the flatter part that is more likely to induce separated flow. Also, the luff is one line of the sail that can be reinforced with a little extra cloth, tabling, whatever, to make it stand up to the forces at the mast. The entire sail cannot be so reinforced, as would be required in mast furling to get the same sail durability as lowering-reefing. And then, what does one do about failures. I have no experience with it, and I am sure it would vary from one in-mast system to another, but I doubt one can lower a partially furled in-mast furled sail. How big would the mast opening (how big a weak-spot in the main mast) have to be at the bottom for that ? Whereas any sort of lowering i.e. boom furling/reefing system puts the boat closer to the safer state of sail down. If one has in-boom or around the boom furling, and it fails, one can always slab-furl or just drop and lash the sail and secure the boom to the deck. Also, to get a boom furl system fixed, one need only remove the boom&main together, and have someone help you carry if over to the shop to get it fixed. One might even stow the boom and main below, and put up some other spar and sail (like a foresail and spinnaker pole), as the boom and main, or run a loose-foot main in a pinch. While the substitute rig is up, one might then work on the mechanical problem below, in the cabin Mast furling is best suited to very fair-weather sailing, and assuming no problems, and getting back to the pub sooner. Just on a design analysis, I would never consider it. I sure would consider nearly identical systems for boom furling though. For my current boat, I am leaning to lazy jacks and slab reefing even though the old rig I have comes with around-the-boom reefing. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mforster@... Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:22:03 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] In the Mast furling The ones that I used were factory set ups with all the workings inside the mast. They worked just like a roller furler on a head sail. The first time I saw one in use we were sailing as a group for lessons and one of the barvarians had it. We were on a C+C with hank on everything and 11 winches. We could sail circles around all the other boats in the group in any wind condition but when we headed into a port they were through their first cold one at the pub and we were still dealing with sails. I have to admit the ones I've used were sweet. I just don't know how you handle a jammed up system when you are in desperate need of reefing. Not a situation I would want to be in when land is not in sight and the waves and wind are getting worse. Maybe one of the more experienced sailors in the group has had some first hand knowledge of that happening. Martin (Prairie Maid) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24359|24359|2010-10-31 14:47:08|wild_explorer|Mast stepping|Looks like a good idea for metal boat: http://www.goodoldboat.com/reader_services/articles/maststepping.php| 24360|24359|2010-10-31 15:40:23|Aaron Williams|Re: Mast stepping|Dont forget to pad the pilot house roof top ________________________________ From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, October 31, 2010 10:46:57 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Mast stepping   Looks like a good idea for metal boat: http://www.goodoldboat.com/reader_services/articles/maststepping.php [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24361|24357|2010-10-31 15:52:15|Paul Wilson|Re: In the Mast furling|Good points and I will add another one.... It is very important in my opinion to be able to reef going downwind offshore. If you can't reef going downwind, you must turn up into the wind and the violent motion head to wind offshore and extra maneuvering is a real pain and can sometimes be dangerous if the seas are high. The apparent wind increases substantially and the mainsail thrashes. For this reason, I don't like any rig that increases friction when pulling down or reefing a mainsail. I have never heard of in-mast roller furling that doesn't require going head to wind. At the risk of going off topic, many full batten systems require this as well because the batten cars bind on the mast track. Full battens hit the rigging, break, increase friction and the batten ends always seem to snag on rigging. I have done a couple of deliveries on boats with full battens and I have no love for them. It is a great way for your sailmaker to make a lot of money, though, if you think that is a big plus :). My first choice offshore is a batten-less mainsail with a simple low-friction external track and slides as Brent recommends. If I bought a boat with in-mast furling, I wouldn't necessarily throw it away due to economics.... try it and see how it goes or sell it to someone who wants it and replace it with something cheaper and simpler.... Cheers, Paul On 11/1/2010 3:00 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > In-mast furling leaves 100% of the weight of the sail up on the mast. When it gets wet, 100% of the weight of a wet sail is up the mast. It requires the mast to have a slot in it. Take two pieces of 1.5" or 2" plastic abs plumbing pipe. Run one through the saw to cut a slot in it. Now mount the bottom of each and see how stiff they are as a mast. The lateral stiffness of the one with the slot is greatly reduced because it has lost the advantage of "shear flow" in a closed section. Yes, lateral is the direction stiffened by the spreaders and stays. But now you need more weight in spreaders and stays, or more weight in the structure of the mast. Add that to the weight of a wet sail, and that is a lot of weight aloft. Would a radar ray-dome at the top of the mast be more or less weight ? What would be safer? Better information or more convenient furling ? > > In-boom furling, or old-fashioned around-the boom furling, or lazy jacks and slab furling gets the weight down off the mast, close to deck level. Getting the weight low helps the boat. > > Having the weight high all the time at anchor would have the effect of increasing the pitch and roll moments of inertia of the boat and would tend to calm the motion of the boat. So this system best suits getting to a comfortable post-sail-drinks-on-the-after-deck state. I say without a hint of sarcasm that some members of the sailing crew of most all boats would rate that most highly, and since the rest of us rely on their enjoying themselves while sailing, this cannot be overlooked. But it is easy to put weight up high if that is the effect one wants. Having one large vinyl fender 3/4 filled with water and running it up the main halyard to a few feet of the top would do about the same thing. > > And if one is using furling as reefing, the exposed sail area geometry is exactly the same whether is it mast or boom reefing, except that the luff of the sail is always exposed in boom reefing, whereas the part closest to the mast in mast reefing is closer and closer to the leech as one reefs. The difference is, the luff of a sail is usually the power shape of the airfoil. The leech is the flatter part that is more likely to induce separated flow. Also, the luff is one line of the sail that can be reinforced with a little extra cloth, tabling, whatever, to make it stand up to the forces at the mast. The entire sail cannot be so reinforced, as would be required in mast furling to get the same sail durability as lowering-reefing. > > And then, what does one do about failures. I have no experience with it, and I am sure it would vary from one in-mast system to another, but I doubt one can lower a partially furled in-mast furled sail. How big would the mast opening (how big a weak-spot in the main mast) have to be at the bottom for that ? Whereas any sort of lowering i.e. boom furling/reefing system puts the boat closer to the safer state of sail down. If one has in-boom or around the boom furling, and it fails, one can always slab-furl or just drop and lash the sail and secure the boom to the deck. Also, to get a boom furl system fixed, one need only remove the boom&main together, and have someone help you carry if over to the shop to get it fixed. One might even stow the boom and main below, and put up some other spar and sail (like a foresail and spinnaker pole), as the boom and main, or run a loose-foot main in a pinch. While the substitute rig is up, one might then work on the mechanical problem below, in the cabin > > Mast furling is best suited to very fair-weather sailing, and assuming no problems, and getting back to the pub sooner. Just on a design analysis, I would never consider it. I sure would consider nearly identical systems for boom furling though. For my current boat, I am leaning to lazy jacks and slab reefing even though the old rig I have comes with around-the-boom reefing. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mforster@... > Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:22:03 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] In the Mast furling > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ones that I used were factory set ups with all the workings inside the mast. They worked just like a roller furler on a head sail. The first time I saw one in use we were sailing as a group for lessons and one of the barvarians had it. We were on a C+C with hank on everything and 11 winches. We could sail circles around all the other boats in the group in any wind condition but when we headed into a port they were through their first cold one at the pub and we were still dealing with sails. I have to admit the ones I've used were sweet. I just don't know how you handle a jammed up system when you are in desperate need of reefing. Not a situation I would want to be in when land is not in sight and the waves and wind are getting worse. Maybe one of the more experienced sailors in the group has had some first hand knowledge of that happening. Martin (Prairie Maid) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.864 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3228 - Release Date: 10/31/10 07:34:00 > | 24362|24359|2010-10-31 16:26:01|Ben Okopnik|Re: Mast stepping|On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 06:46:57PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > Looks like a good idea for metal boat: > > http://www.goodoldboat.com/reader_services/articles/maststepping.php This is a jerry-rigged version of what I've got built into "Ulysses". Nice to see the method getting some recognition. :) Instead of rigging bridles, my main shroud turnbuckles are pinned to chainplates that are extended about 3' off the deck so that the pins are aligned with the pivot bolt on the tabernacle. That's the whole system. Taking the mast down (after all the electrical connections and all the other fiddly bits have been taken care of) is a matter of 1) Snapping the spinnaker pole into its ring on the front of the mast; 2) Passing the jib halyard through the forward end of the pole and wrapping it around the windlass drum; 3) Taking the forestay loose, and slipping the jib halyard to lower the mast. It really helps if you have a padded rest rigged up so that you don't have to lower it all the way - or raise it from dead flat when restepping. That would be really hard on the gear. Of course, another pair of hands can be a great help... assuming that it's attached to a working brain, of course. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24363|24359|2010-10-31 16:31:33|Ben Okopnik|Re: Mast stepping|On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:40:21PM -0700, Aaron Williams wrote: > Dont forget to pad the pilot house roof top Heh. Yeah. The first time I ever did this - with a bunch of friends standing by to help - I realized this about a second before the mast touched the pilothouse, stopped everything, and scrambled like hell to get some padding. Leaving an "over-center" mast suspended in a potentially rolly anchorage (a powerboat could have zoomed by and thrown a wake) is a great motivator for getting things done RIGHT NOW. :) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24364|24357|2010-10-31 18:15:13|Aaron Williams|Re: In the Mast furling|Thanks Paul I picked up this infurling mast cheeper than I could build one with 6" aluminum pipe. It also has a internal track that could be used. ________________________________ From: Paul Wilson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, October 31, 2010 11:52:22 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] In the Mast furling   Good points and I will add another one.... It is very important in my opinion to be able to reef going downwind offshore. If you can't reef going downwind, you must turn up into the wind and the violent motion head to wind offshore and extra maneuvering is a real pain and can sometimes be dangerous if the seas are high. The apparent wind increases substantially and the mainsail thrashes. For this reason, I don't like any rig that increases friction when pulling down or reefing a mainsail. I have never heard of in-mast roller furling that doesn't require going head to wind. At the risk of going off topic, many full batten systems require this as well because the batten cars bind on the mast track. Full battens hit the rigging, break, increase friction and the batten ends always seem to snag on rigging. I have done a couple of deliveries on boats with full battens and I have no love for them. It is a great way for your sailmaker to make a lot of money, though, if you think that is a big plus :). My first choice offshore is a batten-less mainsail with a simple low-friction external track and slides as Brent recommends. If I bought a boat with in-mast furling, I wouldn't necessarily throw it away due to economics.... try it and see how it goes or sell it to someone who wants it and replace it with something cheaper and simpler.... Cheers, Paul On 11/1/2010 3:00 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > In-mast furling leaves 100% of the weight of the sail up on the mast. When it >gets wet, 100% of the weight of a wet sail is up the mast. It requires the mast >to have a slot in it. Take two pieces of 1.5" or 2" plastic abs plumbing pipe. >Run one through the saw to cut a slot in it. Now mount the bottom of each and >see how stiff they are as a mast. The lateral stiffness of the one with the slot >is greatly reduced because it has lost the advantage of "shear flow" in a closed >section. Yes, lateral is the direction stiffened by the spreaders and stays. But >now you need more weight in spreaders and stays, or more weight in the structure >of the mast. Add that to the weight of a wet sail, and that is a lot of weight >aloft. Would a radar ray-dome at the top of the mast be more or less weight ? >What would be safer? Better information or more convenient furling ? > > In-boom furling, or old-fashioned around-the boom furling, or lazy jacks and >slab furling gets the weight down off the mast, close to deck level. Getting the >weight low helps the boat. > > Having the weight high all the time at anchor would have the effect of >increasing the pitch and roll moments of inertia of the boat and would tend to >calm the motion of the boat. So this system best suits getting to a comfortable >post-sail-drinks-on-the-after-deck state. I say without a hint of sarcasm that >some members of the sailing crew of most all boats would rate that most highly, >and since the rest of us rely on their enjoying themselves while sailing, this >cannot be overlooked. But it is easy to put weight up high if that is the effect >one wants. Having one large vinyl fender 3/4 filled with water and running it up >the main halyard to a few feet of the top would do about the same thing. > > And if one is using furling as reefing, the exposed sail area geometry is >exactly the same whether is it mast or boom reefing, except that the luff of the >sail is always exposed in boom reefing, whereas the part closest to the mast in >mast reefing is closer and closer to the leech as one reefs. The difference is, >the luff of a sail is usually the power shape of the airfoil. The leech is the >flatter part that is more likely to induce separated flow. Also, the luff is one >line of the sail that can be reinforced with a little extra cloth, tabling, >whatever, to make it stand up to the forces at the mast. The entire sail cannot >be so reinforced, as would be required in mast furling to get the same sail >durability as lowering-reefing. > > And then, what does one do about failures. I have no experience with it, and I >am sure it would vary from one in-mast system to another, but I doubt one can >lower a partially furled in-mast furled sail. How big would the mast opening >(how big a weak-spot in the main mast) have to be at the bottom for that ? >Whereas any sort of lowering i.e. boom furling/reefing system puts the boat >closer to the safer state of sail down. If one has in-boom or around the boom >furling, and it fails, one can always slab-furl or just drop and lash the sail >and secure the boom to the deck. Also, to get a boom furl system fixed, one need >only remove the boom&main together, and have someone help you carry if over to >the shop to get it fixed. One might even stow the boom and main below, and put >up some other spar and sail (like a foresail and spinnaker pole), as the boom >and main, or run a loose-foot main in a pinch. While the substitute rig is up, >one might then work on the mechanical problem below, in the cabin > > Mast furling is best suited to very fair-weather sailing, and assuming no >problems, and getting back to the pub sooner. Just on a design analysis, I would >never consider it. I sure would consider nearly identical systems for boom >furling though. For my current boat, I am leaning to lazy jacks and slab reefing >even though the old rig I have comes with around-the-boom reefing. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mforster@... > Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:22:03 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] In the Mast furling > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ones that I used were factory set ups with all the workings inside the >mast. They worked just like a roller furler on a head sail. The first time I saw >one in use we were sailing as a group for lessons and one of the barvarians had >it. We were on a C+C with hank on everything and 11 winches. We could sail >circles around all the other boats in the group in any wind condition but when >we headed into a port they were through their first cold one at the pub and we >were still dealing with sails. I have to admit the ones I've used were sweet. I >just don't know how you handle a jammed up system when you are in desperate need >of reefing. Not a situation I would want to be in when land is not in sight and >the waves and wind are getting worse. Maybe one of the more experienced sailors >in the group has had some first hand knowledge of that happening. Martin >(Prairie Maid) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: >origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.864 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3228 - Release Date: 10/31/10 >07:34:00 > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24365|24359|2010-10-31 19:52:30|James Pronk|Re: Mast stepping|I should post the photos of my rig for putting up the mast on my Catalina 27. It is very similar to what they show. I have been doing this for the past 3 seasons and it works great. I have done it with two or three guys with out much problem James --- On Sun, 10/31/10, wild_explorer wrote: From: wild_explorer Subject: [origamiboats] Mast stepping To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Sunday, October 31, 2010, 2:46 PM   Looks like a good idea for metal boat: http://www.goodoldboat.com/reader_services/articles/maststepping.php [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24366|24366|2010-10-31 21:22:43|mregehr_public|how to calculate stability curves|Hi Brent, The stability curves are interesting. How did you calculate and plot them? Martin| 24367|24352|2010-11-01 15:44:04|brentswain38|Re: Dinghy and Kayak stabilisers|Never did. If it wasn't melted down for scrap, t is so recognizable that I would have seen it by now. It probably went to Can Am scrap, a branch of Amix, the biggest metal thieves on the coast, and the ones who stole Rowlands boat. Give them a toll free call, anytime, and ask them, at 877-245-5051 I'm sure they will he happy to discuss the matter, as they get billed for every call. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, john dean wrote: > > Hello Brent > > Did you ever get your Al dinkey back. > > John > > --- On Fri, 10/29/10, brentswain38 wrote: > > > From: brentswain38 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Dinghy and Kayak stabilisers > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Friday, October 29, 2010, 4:44 PM > > If you tie a midship line from > > your  dinghy or Kayak , tight to the dock,or > > boat,  before getting out, then you can put all the > > weight you want on that side, with no fear of capsize. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! > > Groups Links > > > > > >     origamiboats-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > | 24368|24354|2010-11-01 15:45:33|brentswain38|Re: Infurling Mast|As I can reef my main in under a minute, I don't see the point in making reefing that complex and vulnerable. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "martin" wrote: > > Aaron I've chartered several boats with that set-up and for inshore sailing It worked as advertised. When I enquired as to what to do if the need for a fast reduction in sail happend and it jammed they didn't have any real remedy. The only thing I could see would be to let the sail loose and beat it's self to death as you fought to bring it under some form of control. With in boom you can at least release the halyard. Maybe others have experience and solutions. > Martin. (Prairie Maid) > | 24369|24357|2010-11-01 16:18:01|brentswain38|Re: In the Mast furling|80% of all sail repairs are from battens. That is why sailmakers usually tell you you have to have battens. It's in their economic self interest. I sailed from BC to New Zealand with a 12 year old mainsail, with battens. Going down from Raro, a batten pocket tore out completely. I sewed it back in. Then 15 feet of seam tore , starting at a batten pocket. I sewed it back up. In New Zealand I had a sailmaker eliminate the roach and battens, and sew a full length tape up the leach. I put another three thousand miles on that mainsail, much of it to windward in 25 knot gusty trade winds, without popping a stitch. Now, when I buy a used mainsail, before using it, I eliminate the roach, and put a full length of sail cloth up the leech. When people complain about weather helm on the 36, I tell them it is designed for a roachless main. When they eliminate the roach , she balances perfectly. I've never had any problem reefing or dousing my roachless and battenless main in a following wind. There are many times it would have been dangerous to try round up into the wind. John Leacher calculates that a roach increases your speed by between zero and three percent , max. The cruising time wasted, dealing with a torn main is fare more than that. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Good points and I will add another one.... > > It is very important in my opinion to be able to reef going downwind > offshore. If you can't reef going downwind, you must turn up into the > wind and the violent motion head to wind offshore and extra maneuvering > is a real pain and can sometimes be dangerous if the seas are high. > The apparent wind increases substantially and the mainsail thrashes. > For this reason, I don't like any rig that increases friction when > pulling down or reefing a mainsail. I have never heard of in-mast > roller furling that doesn't require going head to wind. At the risk of > going off topic, many full batten systems require this as well because > the batten cars bind on the mast track. Full battens hit the rigging, > break, increase friction and the batten ends always seem to snag on > rigging. I have done a couple of deliveries on boats with full battens > and I have no love for them. It is a great way for your sailmaker to > make a lot of money, though, if you think that is a big plus :). > > My first choice offshore is a batten-less mainsail with a simple > low-friction external track and slides as Brent recommends. If I bought > a boat with in-mast furling, I wouldn't necessarily throw it away due to > economics.... try it and see how it goes or sell it to someone who wants > it and replace it with something cheaper and simpler.... > > Cheers, Paul > > On 11/1/2010 3:00 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > In-mast furling leaves 100% of the weight of the sail up on the mast. When it gets wet, 100% of the weight of a wet sail is up the mast. It requires the mast to have a slot in it. Take two pieces of 1.5" or 2" plastic abs plumbing pipe. Run one through the saw to cut a slot in it. Now mount the bottom of each and see how stiff they are as a mast. The lateral stiffness of the one with the slot is greatly reduced because it has lost the advantage of "shear flow" in a closed section. Yes, lateral is the direction stiffened by the spreaders and stays. But now you need more weight in spreaders and stays, or more weight in the structure of the mast. Add that to the weight of a wet sail, and that is a lot of weight aloft. Would a radar ray-dome at the top of the mast be more or less weight ? What would be safer? Better information or more convenient furling ? > > > > In-boom furling, or old-fashioned around-the boom furling, or lazy jacks and slab furling gets the weight down off the mast, close to deck level. Getting the weight low helps the boat. > > > > Having the weight high all the time at anchor would have the effect of increasing the pitch and roll moments of inertia of the boat and would tend to calm the motion of the boat. So this system best suits getting to a comfortable post-sail-drinks-on-the-after-deck state. I say without a hint of sarcasm that some members of the sailing crew of most all boats would rate that most highly, and since the rest of us rely on their enjoying themselves while sailing, this cannot be overlooked. But it is easy to put weight up high if that is the effect one wants. Having one large vinyl fender 3/4 filled with water and running it up the main halyard to a few feet of the top would do about the same thing. > > > > And if one is using furling as reefing, the exposed sail area geometry is exactly the same whether is it mast or boom reefing, except that the luff of the sail is always exposed in boom reefing, whereas the part closest to the mast in mast reefing is closer and closer to the leech as one reefs. The difference is, the luff of a sail is usually the power shape of the airfoil. The leech is the flatter part that is more likely to induce separated flow. Also, the luff is one line of the sail that can be reinforced with a little extra cloth, tabling, whatever, to make it stand up to the forces at the mast. The entire sail cannot be so reinforced, as would be required in mast furling to get the same sail durability as lowering-reefing. > > > > And then, what does one do about failures. I have no experience with it, and I am sure it would vary from one in-mast system to another, but I doubt one can lower a partially furled in-mast furled sail. How big would the mast opening (how big a weak-spot in the main mast) have to be at the bottom for that ? Whereas any sort of lowering i.e. boom furling/reefing system puts the boat closer to the safer state of sail down. If one has in-boom or around the boom furling, and it fails, one can always slab-furl or just drop and lash the sail and secure the boom to the deck. Also, to get a boom furl system fixed, one need only remove the boom&main together, and have someone help you carry if over to the shop to get it fixed. One might even stow the boom and main below, and put up some other spar and sail (like a foresail and spinnaker pole), as the boom and main, or run a loose-foot main in a pinch. While the substitute rig is up, one might then work on the mechanical problem below, in the cabin > > > > Mast furling is best suited to very fair-weather sailing, and assuming no problems, and getting back to the pub sooner. Just on a design analysis, I would never consider it. I sure would consider nearly identical systems for boom furling though. For my current boat, I am leaning to lazy jacks and slab reefing even though the old rig I have comes with around-the-boom reefing. > > > > Matt > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: mforster@... > > Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:22:03 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] In the Mast furling > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The ones that I used were factory set ups with all the workings inside the mast. They worked just like a roller furler on a head sail. The first time I saw one in use we were sailing as a group for lessons and one of the barvarians had it. We were on a C+C with hank on everything and 11 winches. We could sail circles around all the other boats in the group in any wind condition but when we headed into a port they were through their first cold one at the pub and we were still dealing with sails. I have to admit the ones I've used were sweet. I just don't know how you handle a jammed up system when you are in desperate need of reefing. Not a situation I would want to be in when land is not in sight and the waves and wind are getting worse. Maybe one of the more experienced sailors in the group has had some first hand knowledge of that happening. Martin (Prairie Maid) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 9.0.864 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3228 - Release Date: 10/31/10 07:34:00 > > > | 24370|24366|2010-11-01 16:19:01|brentswain38|Re: how to calculate stability curves|Jim did them on his computer. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mregehr_public" wrote: > > Hi Brent, > > The stability curves are interesting. How did you calculate and plot them? > > Martin > | 24371|24357|2010-11-01 17:30:42|Ben Okopnik|Re: In the Mast furling|On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 08:17:51PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > 80% of all sail repairs are from battens. That is why sailmakers > usually tell you you have to have battens. It's in their economic > self interest. > I sailed from BC to New Zealand with a 12 year old mainsail, with > battens. Going down from Raro, a batten pocket tore out completely. I > sewed it back in. Then 15 feet of seam tore , starting at a batten > pocket. I sewed it back up. In New Zealand I had a sailmaker eliminate > the roach and battens, and sew a full length tape up the leach. I put > another three thousand miles on that mainsail, much of it to windward > in 25 knot gusty trade winds, without popping a stitch. > Now, when I buy a used mainsail, before using it, I eliminate the > roach, and put a full length of sail cloth up the leech. > When people complain about weather helm on the 36, I tell them it is > designed for a roachless main. When they eliminate the roach , she > balances perfectly. > I've never had any problem reefing or dousing my roachless and > battenless main in a following wind. There are many times it would > have been dangerous to try round up into the wind. > John Leacher calculates that a roach increases your speed by between > zero and three percent , max. The cruising time wasted, dealing with > a torn main is fare more than that. Y'know... I've been sailing with battens ever since I started, and have had full-length battens for the last few years, and I'll be damned if every single problem I've had with my sails didn't start with battens (and it's been worse with full battens.) My mainsail is due for replacement right about now, mostly due to those problems, and I think I'm going to go with this advice. I might have to tune my rig a bit, but that shouldn't be a big deal. Wonder how hard it would be to convert it to battenless/roachless on my own... I'm about to take off for a fairly long passage, and it would be nice to have it done already (and might make my mainsail last a little longer.) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24372|24357|2010-11-01 19:13:05|brentswain38|Re: In the Mast furling|I've always done it on my own, except for the first time. No problem. Put some tension on the leech before attaching the full length strip. Stapling it to a dock, under slight tension, before contact cementing the strip on, then sewing it, works well. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 08:17:51PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > 80% of all sail repairs are from battens. That is why sailmakers > > usually tell you you have to have battens. It's in their economic > > self interest. > > I sailed from BC to New Zealand with a 12 year old mainsail, with > > battens. Going down from Raro, a batten pocket tore out completely. I > > sewed it back in. Then 15 feet of seam tore , starting at a batten > > pocket. I sewed it back up. In New Zealand I had a sailmaker eliminate > > the roach and battens, and sew a full length tape up the leach. I put > > another three thousand miles on that mainsail, much of it to windward > > in 25 knot gusty trade winds, without popping a stitch. > > Now, when I buy a used mainsail, before using it, I eliminate the > > roach, and put a full length of sail cloth up the leech. > > When people complain about weather helm on the 36, I tell them it is > > designed for a roachless main. When they eliminate the roach , she > > balances perfectly. > > I've never had any problem reefing or dousing my roachless and > > battenless main in a following wind. There are many times it would > > have been dangerous to try round up into the wind. > > John Leacher calculates that a roach increases your speed by between > > zero and three percent , max. The cruising time wasted, dealing with > > a torn main is fare more than that. > > Y'know... I've been sailing with battens ever since I started, and have > had full-length battens for the last few years, and I'll be damned if > every single problem I've had with my sails didn't start with battens > (and it's been worse with full battens.) My mainsail is due for > replacement right about now, mostly due to those problems, and I think > I'm going to go with this advice. I might have to tune my rig a bit, but > that shouldn't be a big deal. > > Wonder how hard it would be to convert it to battenless/roachless on my > own... I'm about to take off for a fairly long passage, and it would be > nice to have it done already (and might make my mainsail last a little > longer.) > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24373|24357|2010-11-01 20:34:18|Mark Hamill|Re: In the Mast furling|Ben: There are instructions in "the Sailmaker's Apprentice" on how to perform what Marino the author calls a "Roachectomy" ie removing the roach ( so many images arise from that word harking back to my sordid youth--the back of my throat burns just thinking about it)--if you were interested the 2 page might find there way to an electronic device and thence by electrical magic appear in your email?? --but I didn't say that did I. MarkH Wonder how hard it would be to convert it to battenless/roachless on my own... I'm about to take off for a fairly long passage, and it would be nice to have it done already (and might make my mainsail last a little longer.) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24374|24357|2010-11-01 21:32:45|Carl Anderson|used DVD|Anyone wanting a used DVD about building the Brent 36' I have one that I no longer need. Carl sv-mom.com| 24375|24357|2010-11-01 21:40:03|Matt Malone|Re: In the Mast furling|About 3/4 of my problems started with battens. 25% because it was just a very old sail. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 17:30:29 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: In the Mast furling On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 08:17:51PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > 80% of all sail repairs are from battens. That is why sailmakers > usually tell you you have to have battens. It's in their economic > self interest. > I sailed from BC to New Zealand with a 12 year old mainsail, with > battens. Going down from Raro, a batten pocket tore out completely. I > sewed it back in. Then 15 feet of seam tore , starting at a batten > pocket. I sewed it back up. In New Zealand I had a sailmaker eliminate > the roach and battens, and sew a full length tape up the leach. I put > another three thousand miles on that mainsail, much of it to windward > in 25 knot gusty trade winds, without popping a stitch. > Now, when I buy a used mainsail, before using it, I eliminate the > roach, and put a full length of sail cloth up the leech. > When people complain about weather helm on the 36, I tell them it is > designed for a roachless main. When they eliminate the roach , she > balances perfectly. > I've never had any problem reefing or dousing my roachless and > battenless main in a following wind. There are many times it would > have been dangerous to try round up into the wind. > John Leacher calculates that a roach increases your speed by between > zero and three percent , max. The cruising time wasted, dealing with > a torn main is fare more than that. Y'know... I've been sailing with battens ever since I started, and have had full-length battens for the last few years, and I'll be damned if every single problem I've had with my sails didn't start with battens (and it's been worse with full battens.) My mainsail is due for replacement right about now, mostly due to those problems, and I think I'm going to go with this advice. I might have to tune my rig a bit, but that shouldn't be a big deal. Wonder how hard it would be to convert it to battenless/roachless on my own... I'm about to take off for a fairly long passage, and it would be nice to have it done already (and might make my mainsail last a little longer.) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24376|24357|2010-11-01 21:40:55|Ben Okopnik|Re: In the Mast furling|On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 05:34:12PM -0700, Mark Hamill wrote: > Ben: There are instructions in "the Sailmaker's Apprentice" on how to > perform what Marino the author calls a "Roachectomy" ie removing the > roach ( so many images arise from that word harking back to my sordid > youth--the back of my throat burns just thinking about it) [laugh] It seems we both mis-spent our youth in a similar way. (Why am I suddenly visualizing Vinny Gambini? "Yer Honner, dese two innercent yewts..." :) > if you > were interested the 2 page might find there way to an electronic > device and thence by electrical magic appear in your email?? --but I > didn't say that did I. Never. But if it should appear in my mailbox, I'll know who to be grateful to. :) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24377|24352|2010-11-01 21:57:27|Matt Malone|Re: Dinghy and Kayak stabilisers|>stole Rowlands boat ??? Stole and scrapped his boat ? Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 19:44:03 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Dinghy and Kayak stabilisers Never did. If it wasn't melted down for scrap, t is so recognizable that I would have seen it by now. It probably went to Can Am scrap, a branch of Amix, the biggest metal thieves on the coast, and the ones who stole Rowlands boat. Give them a toll free call, anytime, and ask them, at 877-245-5051 I'm sure they will he happy to discuss the matter, as they get billed for every call. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, john dean wrote: > > Hello Brent > > Did you ever get your Al dinkey back. > > John > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24378|24357|2010-11-02 12:16:35|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: used DVD|Yes please ! Hannu > Anyone wanting a used DVD about building the Brent 36' I have one that I > no longer need. > > Carl > sv-mom.com > > __ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24379|24357|2010-11-02 14:15:35|Ashton, Rick|Re: used DVD|Hi Carl ,I am a luker on this site> Never posted but planning to build. I have a good backgriund in the boat trade. Would like to start getting organized. Rick Ashton ________________________________ From: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Carl Anderson Sent: Mon 11/1/2010 6:32 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] used DVD Anyone wanting a used DVD about building the Brent 36' I have one that I no longer need. Carl sv-mom.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24380|24352|2010-11-02 14:26:12|brentswain38|Re: Dinghy and Kayak stabilisers|A druggy stole Rowlands first 36 when it was ready for sandblasting. Two scrapyards turned it down, knowing it was probably stolen, but Can Am paid $950 to the druggy for it, and cut it up as quickly as they could, to make sure no one claimed it in time. No boat mover would touch it so the pre cast place in Duncan , who the druggy had worked for, took it to the scrap sleazebags, knowing full well they were stealing it. Both the precast thieves and the Can Am thieves got of scott free. If everyone on this site gave them a phone call at their toll free number to discuss the crime with them , it would cost them. I'm sure you would all ask for the same consideration if it were your boat they stole. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > >stole Rowlands boat ??? > > Stole and scrapped his boat ? > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 19:44:03 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Dinghy and Kayak stabilisers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Never did. If it wasn't melted down for scrap, t is so > recognizable that I would have seen it by now. It probably went to Can > Am scrap, a branch of Amix, the biggest metal thieves on the coast, and > the ones who stole Rowlands boat. > > Give them a toll free call, anytime, and ask them, at 877-245-5051 > > I'm sure they will he happy to discuss the matter, as they get billed for every call. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, john dean wrote: > > > > > > Hello Brent > > > > > > Did you ever get your Al dinkey back. > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24381|24357|2010-11-02 14:29:22|brentswain38|Re: used DVD|I believe the detail materials list is posted in the files section( which Yahoo soon plans to eliminate) You could start scrounging materials and building the detail bits and pieces, without needing a building site nor spending a lot of money. This drastically reduces the building time once you have started the hull. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ashton, Rick" wrote: > > Hi Carl ,I am a luker on this site> Never posted but planning to build. I have a good backgriund in the boat trade. Would like to start getting organized. > Rick Ashton > > ________________________________ > > From: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Carl Anderson > Sent: Mon 11/1/2010 6:32 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [origamiboats] used DVD > > > > > Anyone wanting a used DVD about building the Brent 36' I have one that I > no longer need. > > Carl > sv-mom.com > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24382|24357|2010-11-02 15:11:55|Carl Anderson|Re: used DVD|I guess that I need to be clear on this. I would like to have $20 to cover the time & expense of sending this DVD to someone who wants to have it. Please send me your address & how you will get the postage money to me. Thanks all, Carl sv-mom.com On 11/2/2010 10:58 AM, Ashton, Rick wrote: > Hi Carl ,I am a luker on this site> Never posted but planning to build. > I have a good backgriund in the boat trade. Would like to start getting > organized. > Rick Ashton > > ________________________________ > > From: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > on behalf of Carl Anderson > Sent: Mon 11/1/2010 6:32 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [origamiboats] used DVD > > Anyone wanting a used DVD about building the Brent 36' I have one that I > no longer need. > > Carl > sv-mom.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > | 24383|24352|2010-11-02 15:52:46|Matt Malone|Calling Can|Hmm... this seems another advantage of a steel boat. One can always weld a big ring to it and chain it to a really big tree, or a really big piece of rebar in an equally large chunk of concrete. That is not so easy with a fibreglass boat. That ring might come in handy if you want to secure the boat in, for instance, a tidal mangrove swamp for a hurricane or a speedy mooring for an afternoon while shopping for supplies. Brent (& others), what do you recommend for physical security of a boat? Time to make that call. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 18:26:08 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Dinghy and Kayak stabilisers A druggy stole Rowlands first 36 when it was ready for sandblasting. Two scrapyards turned it down, knowing it was probably stolen, but Can Am paid $950 to the druggy for it, and cut it up as quickly as they could, to make sure no one claimed it in time. No boat mover would touch it so the pre cast place in Duncan , who the druggy had worked for, took it to the scrap sleazebags, knowing full well they were stealing it. Both the precast thieves and the Can Am thieves got of scott free. If everyone on this site gave them a phone call at their toll free number to discuss the crime with them , it would cost them. I'm sure you would all ask for the same consideration if it were your boat they stole. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > >stole Rowlands boat ??? > > Stole and scrapped his boat ? > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 19:44:03 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Dinghy and Kayak stabilisers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Never did. If it wasn't melted down for scrap, t is so > recognizable that I would have seen it by now. It probably went to Can > Am scrap, a branch of Amix, the biggest metal thieves on the coast, and > the ones who stole Rowlands boat. > > Give them a toll free call, anytime, and ask them, at 877-245-5051 > > I'm sure they will he happy to discuss the matter, as they get billed for every call. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, john dean wrote: > > > > > > Hello Brent > > > > > > Did you ever get your Al dinkey back. > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24384|24352|2010-11-02 16:22:44|Ben Okopnik|Re: Calling Can|On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 03:52:44PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > Hmm... this seems another advantage of a steel boat. One can always > weld a big ring to it and chain it to a really big tree, or a really > big piece of rebar in an equally large chunk of concrete. That is not > so easy with a fibreglass boat. That ring might come in handy if you > want to secure the boat in, for instance, a tidal mangrove swamp for a > hurricane or a speedy mooring for an afternoon while shopping for > supplies. > > Brent (& others), what do you recommend for physical security of a boat? My call is that if you build it in steel, there are plenty of things to chain it to. In Rowland's case, I think it was about the (reasonable) lack of expectation - it's kinda like expecting someone to steal your house! Not something most people think about, but it seems there's the occasional resourceful druggie out there... For security in other ways, if you build it the way that Brent recommends, it's not really an issue. I particularly appreciated his recommendation of using a piece of large-diameter pipe to contain the lock that you use for your hatch; that way, there's no way to force the lock or knock it off with a hammer. Smart! I've used his idea to design a lock that I'll be using for my aft cabin companion: I need a two-point latching system plus a way to lock down a hatch. My "lock" is a piece of 1/4" rod with the end ground into an odd shape, and the "key" is a 1/4" ID SS tube that's been crimped into a matching shape that engages the rod. The end of the rod sits a couple of inches back from a 1/4" hole in the bulkhead, and looks nothing like a lock (all you see from the outside is a small flat plate that can be swung out of the way.) Fitting the "key" through that hole and onto the rod and turning it rotates a disc that 1) moves the vertical locking bar down (engaging two lugs along the edge of the companionway door) and 2) catches a loop on the underside of the hatch in a "claw" welded to the disc. Cheap, simple, very strong, and highly resistant to being picked. For that matter, it's even resistant to being vandalized the way a regular lock could be (pouring glue into a lock is a "cute" trick that some people like to play): the glue would just run down the inside of the bulkhead and never get close to my "lock". (I haven't finished making it yet, but can't see any problems with the design. Personally, I think it would work great on boats of all sorts.) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24385|24352|2010-11-02 16:41:26|Matt Malone|Re: Calling Can|>it's kinda like expecting someone to steal your house! Odd you would mention that. Yes, well, from personal experience I know THAT one is awfully hard to explain to the insurance company. Makes a good story at parties though. And yes, it was a real house with a foundation and brick chimney, not a mobile home. >My "lock" is a piece of 1/4" rod with the end ground into an odd shape, and the >"key" is a 1/4" ID SS tube that's been crimped into a >matching shape that engages the rod. Again, odd that you would mention that. My Dad made a safe based on a very similar mechanism. He was very proud of it. It worked very well most was a bit temperamental some of the time, until the day it did not work at all, and he was very unhappy to have to cut a hole in the side of the safe to open it. From then on the patched-up hole was a reminder. Be careful making safes. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 16:22:39 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Calling Can On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 03:52:44PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > Hmm... this seems another advantage of a steel boat. One can always > weld a big ring to it and chain it to a really big tree, or a really > big piece of rebar in an equally large chunk of concrete. That is not > so easy with a fibreglass boat. That ring might come in handy if you > want to secure the boat in, for instance, a tidal mangrove swamp for a > hurricane or a speedy mooring for an afternoon while shopping for > supplies. > > Brent (& others), what do you recommend for physical security of a boat? My call is that if you build it in steel, there are plenty of things to chain it to. In Rowland's case, I think it was about the (reasonable) lack of expectation - it's kinda like expecting someone to steal your house! Not something most people think about, but it seems there's the occasional resourceful druggie out there... For security in other ways, if you build it the way that Brent recommends, it's not really an issue. I particularly appreciated his recommendation of using a piece of large-diameter pipe to contain the lock that you use for your hatch; that way, there's no way to force the lock or knock it off with a hammer. Smart! I've used his idea to design a lock that I'll be using for my aft cabin companion: I need a two-point latching system plus a way to lock down a hatch. My "lock" is a piece of 1/4" rod with the end ground into an odd shape, and the "key" is a 1/4" ID SS tube that's been crimped into a matching shape that engages the rod. The end of the rod sits a couple of inches back from a 1/4" hole in the bulkhead, and looks nothing like a lock (all you see from the outside is a small flat plate that can be swung out of the way.) Fitting the "key" through that hole and onto the rod and turning it rotates a disc that 1) moves the vertical locking bar down (engaging two lugs along the edge of the companionway door) and 2) catches a loop on the underside of the hatch in a "claw" welded to the disc. Cheap, simple, very strong, and highly resistant to being picked. For that matter, it's even resistant to being vandalized the way a regular lock could be (pouring glue into a lock is a "cute" trick that some people like to play): the glue would just run down the inside of the bulkhead and never get close to my "lock". (I haven't finished making it yet, but can't see any problems with the design. Personally, I think it would work great on boats of all sorts.) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24386|24245|2010-11-02 16:44:30|Lindsay|Re: Rough weather|Bit of a lurker here but thought some might find this interesting ,in fact the whole log-story is worth a read.Some peolpes lives just seem to be a perpetual adventure. http://www.starofthewest.co.nz/index.htm "Left Mbareho for Rinjenje Is (Nono Lagoon) on 8-1-91. A gale blew up in the middle of the night and we moved in the darkness (thanks to Radar) from the lee shore we found ourselves on to a new sheltered anchorage. "Lee Breeze" stayed and ended on the reef. It took all the next day to get her finally off thanks to a tow from Island trader "Sakile". Much pounding on the reef and trauma for Mike and Sue but fortunately "Lee Breeze" is a steel boat and she only suffered underwater with bent steel plates and loss of paint. It would have been a terminal grounding for a wooden or fibreglass craft." headonz on the wild west coast, NZ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24387|24366|2010-11-03 11:16:49|mregehr_public|Re: how to calculate stability curves|Hi Brent, Thanks for the reply. Do you know what program Jim used, or how I can contact him to ask him? Martin --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > Jim did them on his computer. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mregehr_public" wrote: > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > The stability curves are interesting. How did you calculate and plot them? > > > > Martin > > > | 24388|24366|2010-11-03 13:53:32|wild_explorer|Re: how to calculate stability curves|BrentBoats has main advantage over others designs - several of them were built lately in different configurations. It would be interesting if some owners, who weighted their boats before launching, could do simplified stability test (and inclination test) at the dock. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mregehr_public" wrote: > > Hi Brent, > > Thanks for the reply. Do you know what program Jim used, or how I can contact him to ask him? > > Martin > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > Jim did them on his computer. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mregehr_public" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > The stability curves are interesting. How did you calculate and plot them? > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > | 24389|24352|2010-11-03 15:12:02|brentswain38|Re: Calling Can|Doesn't work if there are tools and a cutting torch nearby. Don't have any other easy answers, except to cost the thieves as much as possible, when they are so easily identified. Easy for those costs to exceed what they have to gain. I remember a story about a guy who's mother was ripped off by the bible thumper Oral Roberts. He programed his computer to dial their toll free number, automatically, every 30 seconds. It cost the bible thumper 30 million in phone bills. When they went to court, the judge said "When you have a toll free number, that means you agree to accept any calls which come in. Case dismissed." --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > Hmm... this seems another advantage of a steel boat. One can always weld a big ring to it and chain it to a really big tree, or a really big piece of rebar in an equally large chunk of concrete. That is not so easy with a fibreglass boat. That ring might come in handy if you want to secure the boat in, for instance, a tidal mangrove swamp for a hurricane or a speedy mooring for an afternoon while shopping for supplies. > > Brent (& others), what do you recommend for physical security of a boat? > > Time to make that call. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 18:26:08 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Dinghy and Kayak stabilisers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A druggy stole Rowlands first 36 when it was ready for sandblasting. Two scrapyards turned it down, knowing it was probably stolen, but Can Am paid $950 to the druggy for it, and cut it up as quickly as they could, to make sure no one claimed it in time. > > No boat mover would touch it so the pre cast place in Duncan , who the druggy had worked for, took it to the scrap sleazebags, knowing full well they were stealing it. > > Both the precast thieves and the Can Am thieves got of scott free. > > If everyone on this site gave them a phone call at their toll free number to discuss the crime with them , it would cost them. I'm sure you would all ask for the same consideration if it were your boat they stole. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >stole Rowlands boat ??? > > > > > > Stole and scrapped his boat ? > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 19:44:03 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Dinghy and Kayak stabilisers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Never did. If it wasn't melted down for scrap, t is so > > > recognizable that I would have seen it by now. It probably went to Can > > > Am scrap, a branch of Amix, the biggest metal thieves on the coast, and > > > the ones who stole Rowlands boat. > > > > > > Give them a toll free call, anytime, and ask them, at 877-245-5051 > > > > > > I'm sure they will he happy to discuss the matter, as they get billed for every call. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, john dean wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Brent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you ever get your Al dinkey back. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24390|24366|2010-11-03 15:14:39|brentswain38|Re: how to calculate stability curves|He is Wild explorer. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mregehr_public" wrote: > > Hi Brent, > > Thanks for the reply. Do you know what program Jim used, or how I can contact him to ask him? > > Martin > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > Jim did them on his computer. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mregehr_public" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > The stability curves are interesting. How did you calculate and plot them? > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > | 24391|24245|2010-11-03 15:20:21|brentswain38|Re: Rough weather|These experiences are common with steel boats. That is why many cruisers choose metal for their second cruising boats, after having the shit scared out of them many times and seeing first hand how much punishment a steel boat can take. Coral anchorage is very dicey at the best of times. If there is a river nearby, on a high island, you can probably anchor in a far more secure mud bottom. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Lindsay" wrote: > > Bit of a lurker here but thought some might find this interesting ,in fact the whole log-story is worth a read.Some peolpes lives just seem to be a perpetual adventure. > > http://www.starofthewest.co.nz/index.htm > > "Left Mbareho for Rinjenje Is (Nono Lagoon) on 8-1-91. A gale blew up in the middle of the night and we moved in the darkness (thanks to Radar) from the lee shore we found ourselves on to a new sheltered anchorage. "Lee Breeze" stayed and ended on the reef. It took all the next day to get her finally off thanks to a tow from Island trader "Sakile". Much pounding on the reef and trauma for Mike and Sue but fortunately "Lee Breeze" is a steel boat and she only suffered underwater with bent steel plates and loss of paint. It would have been a terminal grounding for a wooden or fibreglass craft." > > > headonz > > on the wild west coast, NZ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24392|24245|2010-11-03 15:56:51|Ben Okopnik|Re: Rough weather|On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 07:20:10PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > These experiences are common with steel boats. That is why many > cruisers choose metal for their second cruising boats, after having > the shit scared out of them many times and seeing first hand how much > punishment a steel boat can take. When I was anchored in Mayaguana, Bahamas, one of our standard ways of entertaining ourselves was to watch the boats coming in, most of which ran up on the reef - Bruce Van Sant's guide to the area, which many considered to be the bible for cruising, had the wrong GPS coordinates for the entrance, so these fools rushed in where angels feared to tread. "A prudent mariner never relies on a single source of information for navigation"...) All of them ran around screaming like crazy people when it happened - and I have no doubt that pretty much all of those boats got pretty badly damaged. At least one of them, a gold-plater called "Maranatha", limped back to Georgetown and spent the next 6 months getting her hull repaired (that was all OK, though; their church bought them the boat and was footing their bills, 'cause they were on a mission to bring religion to the heathens. Brand-new 50+-foot boat, that was. Nice work if you can get it. I guess.) On the other hand, a guy in a steel boat - yep, our kind come in the foolish variety as well :) - ran up on it doing about 5 knots... quietly got into his dinghy, laid out his anchor, kedged himself off, and then worked his way into the anchorage. I was impressed as hell. His attitude spoke volumes about his mindset regarding his trust in the boat, and it made for quite the contrast with the usual run of boaters. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24393|24245|2010-11-04 11:56:41|Carl Anderson|BOOKS|Hey all, the dvd is gone. BUT we still have these books. Is anyone interested? STEEL AWAY - A guide to the world of steel sailboats THE OCEAN SAILING YACHT - By Donald M. Street FROM A BARE HULL - By Ferenc Mate’ PRECISION CRUISING – By Arthur F. Chace We're wrapping up our life here in Utah to move towards being on MOM - Thanks! Carl sv-mom.com http://hdd.net/sandy-house-auction/ On 11/3/2010 1:56 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 07:20:10PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > These experiences are common with steel boats. That is why many > > cruisers choose metal for their second cruising boats, after having > > the shit scared out of them many times and seeing first hand how much > > punishment a steel boat can take. > > When I was anchored in Mayaguana, Bahamas, one of our standard ways of > entertaining ourselves was to watch the boats coming in, most of which > ran up on the reef - Bruce Van Sant's guide to the area, which many > considered to be the bible for cruising, had the wrong GPS coordinates > for the entrance, so these fools rushed in where angels feared to tread. > "A prudent mariner never relies on a single source of information for > navigation"...) All of them ran around screaming like crazy people when > it happened - and I have no doubt that pretty much all of those boats > got pretty badly damaged. At least one of them, a gold-plater called > "Maranatha", limped back to Georgetown and spent the next 6 months > getting her hull repaired (that was all OK, though; their church bought > them the boat and was footing their bills, 'cause they were on a mission > to bring religion to the heathens. Brand-new 50+-foot boat, that was. > Nice work if you can get it. I guess.) > > On the other hand, a guy in a steel boat - yep, our kind come in the > foolish variety as well :) - ran up on it doing about 5 knots... quietly > got into his dinghy, laid out his anchor, kedged himself off, and then > worked his way into the anchorage. I was impressed as hell. His attitude > spoke volumes about his mindset regarding his trust in the boat, and it > made for quite the contrast with the usual run of boaters. > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > | 24394|24352|2010-11-04 15:39:20|Ben Okopnik|Re: Calling Can|On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 04:41:17PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > >it's kinda like expecting someone to steal your house! > > Odd you would mention that. Yes, well, from personal experience I > know THAT one is awfully hard to explain to the insurance company. > Makes a good story at parties though. And yes, it was a real house > with a foundation and brick chimney, not a mobile home. Heh. It would take a bit of explaining. - "Sir, don't you mean someone _burglarized_ your house?" - "Erm, no. Let me spell the word for you: S-T-O-L-E." :) > >My "lock" is a piece of 1/4" rod with the end ground into an odd shape, and the > >"key" is a 1/4" ID SS tube that's been crimped into a > >matching shape that engages the rod. > > Again, odd that you would mention that. My Dad made a safe based on a > very similar mechanism. He was very proud of it. It worked very well > most was a bit temperamental some of the time, until the day it did > not work at all, and he was very unhappy to have to cut a hole in the > side of the safe to open it. From then on the patched-up hole was a > reminder. Be careful making safes. Yeah, getting locked out of your own boat would suck. Do you happen to remember how your Dad's lock failed? I can't see a whole lot of ways beyond losing the key (but I know what the pattern is, and can remake it pretty quickly and easily with a 1/4" ID tube and a chisel.) The latches can't stick - they're just held down by gravity, the fit is quite loose, and it would be awfully hard to damage 1/4" SS rod by doing anything from the outside. Like the AK-47 and the Sten gun, this lock depends on the fact that metal is hard, the fit is loose, and the design is simple. All good things to rely on. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24395|24245|2010-11-04 15:48:05|brentswain38|Re: Rough weather|I have often hit the rocks at hull speed, then backed off without a care in the world. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 07:20:10PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > These experiences are common with steel boats. That is why many > > cruisers choose metal for their second cruising boats, after having > > the shit scared out of them many times and seeing first hand how much > > punishment a steel boat can take. > > When I was anchored in Mayaguana, Bahamas, one of our standard ways of > entertaining ourselves was to watch the boats coming in, most of which > ran up on the reef - Bruce Van Sant's guide to the area, which many > considered to be the bible for cruising, had the wrong GPS coordinates > for the entrance, so these fools rushed in where angels feared to tread. > "A prudent mariner never relies on a single source of information for > navigation"...) All of them ran around screaming like crazy people when > it happened - and I have no doubt that pretty much all of those boats > got pretty badly damaged. At least one of them, a gold-plater called > "Maranatha", limped back to Georgetown and spent the next 6 months > getting her hull repaired (that was all OK, though; their church bought > them the boat and was footing their bills, 'cause they were on a mission > to bring religion to the heathens. Brand-new 50+-foot boat, that was. > Nice work if you can get it. I guess.) > > On the other hand, a guy in a steel boat - yep, our kind come in the > foolish variety as well :) - ran up on it doing about 5 knots... quietly > got into his dinghy, laid out his anchor, kedged himself off, and then > worked his way into the anchorage. I was impressed as hell. His attitude > spoke volumes about his mindset regarding his trust in the boat, and it > made for quite the contrast with the usual run of boaters. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24396|24245|2010-11-04 17:39:15|Carl Anderson|Re: Rough weather|Anyone concerned about hitting the ground with a steel sailboat should look at our web site. We have a GREAT picture of MOM "on the rocks" outside of Nanaimo. Nothing but some scraped off paint from the grounding. Rather dramatic looking however. Also a good reason to have the twin keels!! Carl sv-mom.com On 11/4/2010 1:48 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > I have often hit the rocks at hull speed, then backed off without a care > in the world. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 07:20:10PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > > These experiences are common with steel boats. That is why many > > > cruisers choose metal for their second cruising boats, after having > > > the shit scared out of them many times and seeing first hand how much > > > punishment a steel boat can take. > > > > When I was anchored in Mayaguana, Bahamas, one of our standard ways of > > entertaining ourselves was to watch the boats coming in, most of which > > ran up on the reef - Bruce Van Sant's guide to the area, which many > > considered to be the bible for cruising, had the wrong GPS coordinates > > for the entrance, so these fools rushed in where angels feared to tread. > > "A prudent mariner never relies on a single source of information for > > navigation"...) All of them ran around screaming like crazy people when > > it happened - and I have no doubt that pretty much all of those boats > > got pretty badly damaged. At least one of them, a gold-plater called > > "Maranatha", limped back to Georgetown and spent the next 6 months > > getting her hull repaired (that was all OK, though; their church bought > > them the boat and was footing their bills, 'cause they were on a mission > > to bring religion to the heathens. Brand-new 50+-foot boat, that was. > > Nice work if you can get it. I guess.) > > > > On the other hand, a guy in a steel boat - yep, our kind come in the > > foolish variety as well :) - ran up on it doing about 5 knots... quietly > > got into his dinghy, laid out his anchor, kedged himself off, and then > > worked his way into the anchorage. I was impressed as hell. His attitude > > spoke volumes about his mindset regarding his trust in the boat, and it > > made for quite the contrast with the usual run of boaters. > > > > > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > | 24397|24397|2010-11-04 18:38:06|Mark Hamill|Seawater in engine|Hi: I Just bought a 1984 36 footer in Campbell River with an engine that apparently siphoned seawater into the engine--a Yanmar 3GMD. The thing is seized. Any thoughts on how to proceed?? MarkH| 24398|24397|2010-11-04 19:20:53|kingsknight4life|Re: Seawater in engine|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > Hi: > I Just bought a 1984 36 footer in Campbell River with an engine that > apparently siphoned seawater into the engine--a Yanmar 3GMD. The thing is > seized. Any thoughts on how to proceed?? MarkH > Congrats Mark I saw that boat for sale and wondered if it would last the week. I thought about buying it and parting it out for my project but thought it would be bad karma to dismantle a "brent boat" even if it was to build a new one. Rowland| 24399|24397|2010-11-04 21:07:33|Carl Anderson|Re: Seawater in engine|just replace it with an Isuzu that is skeg cooled & dry exhaust. Carl sv-mom.com On 11/4/2010 4:38 PM, Mark Hamill wrote: > Hi: > I Just bought a 1984 36 footer in Campbell River with an engine that > apparently siphoned seawater into the engine--a Yanmar 3GMD. The thing is > seized. Any thoughts on how to proceed?? MarkH > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > | 24400|24397|2010-11-04 21:14:46|David Frantz|Re: Seawater in engine|Engines sieze up for a lot of reasons. If the boat is new to you find out how much a complete overhaul will cost and what the exact problem is. Then compare that with buying another engine. Can you do a rebuild yourself? That would save you some money, especially if the damage is minor. Also find out if the engine was running at the time the water was pulled in. If water got into a cylinder while running or cranking the damage could be pretty bad. On the other hand if the engine just sat there and rusted a few parts together if might be a bit easier to fix. Oh one more thing find a service manual for the engine. A manual will give you an idea of the complexity involved in tepairing it. David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Nov 4, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Mark Hamill wrote: > Hi: > I Just bought a 1984 36 footer in Campbell River with an engine that > apparently siphoned seawater into the engine--a Yanmar 3GMD. The thing is > seized. Any thoughts on how to proceed?? MarkH > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24401|24397|2010-11-04 21:42:34|wild_explorer|Re: Seawater in engine|IF it was seized just because of "sitting" (or water got in when not running), remove injector/s, drain out oil, put oil drain plug back in. Disconnect intake and exhaust + plug it. Or skip this step, If you are sure, that liquid from cylinder/s will not leak trough them, you can leave it on (without disconnecting). Fill it up from the TOP of the cylinder/cylinders by kerosene (or mix of kerosene and car automatic transmission oil)- trough removed injector's opening (or opened valve if unable to remove injector/s). Leave it for several days, top it off regularly until all engine filled up. It might help. After about 2 weeks drain kerosene/mixture out (save it just in case). If after this, you will not be able to turn engine SLOWLY (not by starter) - too bad. It might have more severe damage. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > Engines sieze up for a lot of reasons. If the boat is new to you find out how much a complete overhaul will cost and what the exact problem is. Then compare that with buying another engine. > > Can you do a rebuild yourself? That would save you some money, especially if the damage is minor. Also find out if the engine was running at the time the water was pulled in. If water got into a cylinder while running or cranking the damage could be pretty bad. On the other hand if the engine just sat there and rusted a few parts together if might be a bit easier to fix. > > Oh one more thing find a service manual for the engine. A manual will give you an idea of the complexity involved in tepairing it. > > > > David A Frantz > > websterindustro@... > Sent from my iPhone. > > On Nov 4, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Mark Hamill wrote: > > > Hi: > > I Just bought a 1984 36 footer in Campbell River with an engine that > > apparently siphoned seawater into the engine--a Yanmar 3GMD. The thing is > > seized. Any thoughts on how to proceed?? MarkH > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > | 24402|24397|2010-11-04 23:18:40|Ben Okopnik|Re: Seawater in engine|On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 03:38:19PM -0700, Mark Hamill wrote: > Hi: > I Just bought a 1984 36 footer in Campbell River with an engine that > apparently siphoned seawater into the engine--a Yanmar 3GMD. The thing is > seized. Any thoughts on how to proceed?? MarkH I'd check the oil to make sure that it did indeed suck up water. You might be in luck - never know till you try, right? Something I learned from a real knowledgeable guy who's sold a lot of boats over the years: if it's seized, put a big pipe wrench on it and see if you can break it loose. If you can, then crack the injectors loose and see if you can crank it over a couple of times. If so, then tighten the injectors back down and see if it'll fire up and run for just a few seconds (I ran one of his boats from Annapolis up to Baltimore, and it had been seized when we got on board; ran just fine 20 minutes later.) How many of those "tests" it passes will tell you roughly how much you'll need to spend to fix it. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24403|24397|2010-11-05 03:25:29|David Frantz|Re: Seawater in engine|I grew up infarm country and one farmer was well know for his modest maintenance skills. In other words he siezed more than engine. Often the engine can be repaired without huge expenses. The important thing is to not assume the engine is trashed until you have proven so to yourself. Diesels are relatively simple machine, this should be kept in mind. Well outside of the injectors they are. In any event get as much info as possible with respect to how it failed with the water is the first step. If water was sucked in during operation the damage could be extensive. If the water came in while sitting in port over a long period of time there may be mote hope. I like your idea with the kerosene. I might even suggest putting the whole engine in a barrel or tube to soak a bit. Admittedly I'm biased to pulling the engine and tearing it down for a good look. Mainly because it is a used motor and I'd rather know from first hand examination that it is worth stuffing back into the ship. Lets face it water damage may not be the whole story here. David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Nov 4, 2010, at 9:42 PM, wild_explorer wrote: > IF it was seized just because of "sitting" (or water got in when not running), remove injector/s, drain out oil, put oil drain plug back in. > > Disconnect intake and exhaust + plug it. Or skip this step, If you are sure, that liquid from cylinder/s will not leak trough them, you can leave it on (without disconnecting). > > Fill it up from the TOP of the cylinder/cylinders by kerosene (or mix of kerosene and car automatic transmission oil)- trough removed injector's opening (or opened valve if unable to remove injector/s). Leave it for several days, top it off regularly until all engine filled up. > > It might help. After about 2 weeks drain kerosene/mixture out (save it just in case). If after this, you will not be able to turn engine SLOWLY (not by starter) - too bad. It might have more severe damage. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: >> >> Engines sieze up for a lot of reasons. If the boat is new to you find out how much a complete overhaul will cost and what the exact problem is. Then compare that with buying another engine. >> >> Can you do a rebuild yourself? That would save you some money, especially if the damage is minor. Also find out if the engine was running at the time the water was pulled in. If water got into a cylinder while running or cranking the damage could be pretty bad. On the other hand if the engine just sat there and rusted a few parts together if might be a bit easier to fix. >> >> Oh one more thing find a service manual for the engine. A manual will give you an idea of the complexity involved in tepairing it. >> >> >> >> David A Frantz >> >> websterindustro@... >> Sent from my iPhone. >> >> On Nov 4, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Mark Hamill wrote: >> >>> Hi: >>> I Just bought a 1984 36 footer in Campbell River with an engine that >>> apparently siphoned seawater into the engine--a Yanmar 3GMD. The thing is >>> seized. Any thoughts on how to proceed?? MarkH >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------ >>> >>> To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >>> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24404|24397|2010-11-05 06:03:03|h|Re: Seawater in engine|I knew someone would have picked that up pretty quick, If I had four grand laying around, I would of gotten it, I tried to get some friends I know who are looking for a boat to jump on it but I don't think they understood the urgency and didn't take me seriously when I said go see it TODAY, anyway congratulations welcome to the club. No idea about the engine but I have seen a few pretty cheap "working" e ngines on craigslist these days in fact there was a working 50hp in CR last month for 500 bucks transmission and all, again wish I just had money lying around, but alas.... Anyway wanna sell your catamaran to some friends of mine? What's the history of that boat? anyone know? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > Hi: > I Just bought a 1984 36 footer in Campbell River with an engine that > apparently siphoned seawater into the engine--a Yanmar 3GMD. The thing is > seized. Any thoughts on how to proceed?? MarkH > | 24405|24405|2010-11-05 08:53:57|nathanpincher|40ft steel motorsailer boat project|Howdy all, We've recently taken on a steel motorsailer project on the south coast of the UK and after a number of postings on Sailnet, someone suggested I make my way over here for introductions. The boat was built in 1974 and has sat for the past year with 200 gallons of freshwater in the bilge (love those teak decks). Our first order of operations has been to dry out the interior - no easy feat when the walls are saturated, so we've begun stripping back the sprayed in insulation in the salon and hope to have that area completely bare by end of this weekend. We've setup a facebook page to track the build (svbellissima) so I might throw some pictures up here, but given my work schedule they'll more than likely just get updated on that page. I expect we're going to have a TONNE of questions also, predominantly around the steel preparation and rust treatment, so any advice would of course be greatly appreciated. cheers, nathan| 24406|24397|2010-11-05 08:58:08|Denis Buggy|Re: Seawater in engine|David's advice is the direction you should go as if you had reconditioned an engine before you would not be looking for advice -- and a replacement engine would be the quickest solution as soon as you determine the original must be scrapped . if water was ingested through the air manifold while the engine was running you have to check for a lot of damage--- bent conrods are usual -- you can check this quickly when you remove the head and put a dial gauge on tdc of each piston -- also if the rust has caused pitting above the area where the rings run it does not matter even though it makes the engine look like a scrapper - if it does not cause blowback then it does not matter . your pushrods take a hammering with water and do not let a " genius " straighten them for you as all their strength is derived from being 100%straight -- 99% is trembling disaster waiting to happen --- replace them -- check cam followers and rocker arms and rotate the camshaft by fingerpower in its bearings as any distortion will be picked up by finger pressure as will the rotation of the crankshaft --- a Gardner 8 cyl in line crankshaft 14 lt engine can be turned by hand without difficulty -- a 3 cyl Kubota should move as freely as the drum of your washing machine . if somebody does the job for you check how free the engine rotates before the head goes back on and check the height of each piston they should all be the same and should be the same height as the old pistons you took out as this is Kubota height which is the only figure you can use -- no excuses no discussion -- none . likewise being told after you detect a tight spot in the crank and pistons when turned IT WILL BED IN --- bullshit -- expensive bullshit . if the engine was merely immersed in water without being run --expect to scrap the fuel system as any pitting in the pump scraps it beyond repair . everything else can be cleaned up if you can take it apart and merely buy a complete set of gaskets and all the time in the world and a good electric rotary wire brush . regards Denis Buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: David Frantz To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Cc: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Seawater in engine Engines sieze up for a lot of reasons. If the boat is new to you find out how much a complete overhaul will cost and what the exact problem is. Then compare that with buying another engine. Can you do a rebuild yourself? That would save you some money, especially if the damage is minor. Also find out if the engine was running at the time the water was pulled in. If water got into a cylinder while running or cranking the damage could be pretty bad. On the other hand if the engine just sat there and rusted a few parts together if might be a bit easier to fix. Oh one more thing find a service manual for the engine. A manual will give you an idea of the complexity involved in tepairing it. David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Nov 4, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Mark Hamill wrote: > Hi: > I Just bought a 1984 36 footer in Campbell River with an engine that > apparently siphoned seawater into the engine--a Yanmar 3GMD. The thing is > seized. Any thoughts on how to proceed?? MarkH > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24407|24397|2010-11-05 10:58:29|BrdbMc@aol.com|Re: Seawater in engine|Hi , if the engine siphoned water while running the damage could be considerable,but if water entered whilst the engine was stopped it may be just a case of freeing using the methods stated by others .My approach would be to remove injectors and fill the bores with a paraffin leave for a day then try turning the engine manually .Depending on the results further work can be undertaken. The whole problem is a bit of suck it and see I have managed to get engines running that have been immersed in water for 2 or 3 months and others that have been stood for over 5 years with out running .Some engines like the Doxford have liners so porous that if a engine is stopped for over 15 minutes it is normal to spin the engine with the air cocks open to expel water. Cheers Mikeafloat -----Original Message----- From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 22:38 Subject: [origamiboats] Seawater in engine Hi: Just bought a 1984 36 footer in Campbell River with an engine that pparently siphoned seawater into the engine--a Yanmar 3GMD. The thing is eized. Any thoughts on how to proceed?? MarkH ------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com o Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! roups Links Individual Email | Traditional http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24408|24397|2010-11-05 12:02:35|Mark Hamill|Re: Seawater in engine|Hi all: Great advice. The engine was not running. Evidently he forgot to close the raw water intake valve and it syphoned that way. Does that make sense?? If I hadn't driven the owner up to the boat I doubt if I would have been able to purchase it. There were two other people interested and waiting. Well, I hope this works out--I know I am very excited about it. If anybody has more thoughts about the motor--fire away. Thanks, MarkH ps: h---Email me directly about the catamaran--it is in Courtenay. mhamill1@... It is a Wharram Tangaroa 4 ketch with two Force 10 propane cabin heaters and a Force 10 Kerosene Cooker/oven. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24409|24397|2010-11-05 12:47:13|Ben Okopnik|Re: Seawater in engine|On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 09:02:49AM -0700, Mark Hamill wrote: > Hi all: Great advice. The engine was not running. Evidently he forgot > to close the raw water intake valve and it syphoned that way. Does > that make sense?? Actually, no. :) The raw water intake is supposed to be open - all the time. On my old boat, where I actually had one, I don't recall ever closing it in the 7 years or so that I owned that boat. I'd definitely make a point of checking that oil and seeing if there actually was any water intrusion. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24410|24245|2010-11-05 15:09:09|brentswain38|Re: Rough weather|Makes you wonder what that would have done to a "Lloyds or ABYC"approved wood or fibreglass boat. Would the rocks have been gentler on them, having see the approval papers? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Carl Anderson wrote: > > Anyone concerned about hitting the ground with a steel sailboat should > look at our web site. > We have a GREAT picture of MOM "on the rocks" outside of Nanaimo. > Nothing but some scraped off paint from the grounding. > Rather dramatic looking however. > Also a good reason to have the twin keels!! > > Carl > sv-mom.com > > > > On 11/4/2010 1:48 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > I have often hit the rocks at hull speed, then backed off without a care > > in the world. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 07:20:10PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > These experiences are common with steel boats. That is why many > > > > cruisers choose metal for their second cruising boats, after having > > > > the shit scared out of them many times and seeing first hand how much > > > > punishment a steel boat can take. > > > > > > When I was anchored in Mayaguana, Bahamas, one of our standard ways of > > > entertaining ourselves was to watch the boats coming in, most of which > > > ran up on the reef - Bruce Van Sant's guide to the area, which many > > > considered to be the bible for cruising, had the wrong GPS coordinates > > > for the entrance, so these fools rushed in where angels feared to tread. > > > "A prudent mariner never relies on a single source of information for > > > navigation"...) All of them ran around screaming like crazy people when > > > it happened - and I have no doubt that pretty much all of those boats > > > got pretty badly damaged. At least one of them, a gold-plater called > > > "Maranatha", limped back to Georgetown and spent the next 6 months > > > getting her hull repaired (that was all OK, though; their church bought > > > them the boat and was footing their bills, 'cause they were on a mission > > > to bring religion to the heathens. Brand-new 50+-foot boat, that was. > > > Nice work if you can get it. I guess.) > > > > > > On the other hand, a guy in a steel boat - yep, our kind come in the > > > foolish variety as well :) - ran up on it doing about 5 knots... quietly > > > got into his dinghy, laid out his anchor, kedged himself off, and then > > > worked his way into the anchorage. I was impressed as hell. His attitude > > > spoke volumes about his mindset regarding his trust in the boat, and it > > > made for quite the contrast with the usual run of boaters. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > > > > > | 24411|24397|2010-11-05 15:27:57|brentswain38|Re: Seawater in engine|Another victim of a wet exhaust. I tried to convince him to go dry exhaust when he built the boat, but the mechanics( who like to see repairs needed) convinced him otherwise. He said as long as he remembers to shut the exhaust valve of, every time it wouldn't be a problem. One should not be required to remember anything ,if possible. The engine was installed new, and has very few hours on it. It seized last summer and he filed the cylindres with oil. He could turn it at first, but later couldn't, even with a big wrench. There is an injector place in Campbell River, who are easy to deal with. You should take your injectors there for a test. You should pull the head off it . Winston, after getting rolled over several times rounding the Cape of Good Hope, worked for a year in SA, then when he went to sea again, found the Yanmar seized solid. He took the head off, scraped the salt and corrosion out, pounded down on the piston with a tight fitting block of wood, until he got her moving again, then soaked her in oil.Then he put it together again , at sea, and she ran just fine. That was in the early 80's and that engine is still running. If all else fails I know a guy with a rebuilt VW diesel for sale, cheap. That 36 doesn't have a wheelhouse on it , but that could be cured in a week. Ditto self steering and inside steering. Congratulations. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 09:02:49AM -0700, Mark Hamill wrote: > > Hi all: Great advice. The engine was not running. Evidently he forgot > > to close the raw water intake valve and it syphoned that way. Does > > that make sense?? > > Actually, no. :) The raw water intake is supposed to be open - all the > time. On my old boat, where I actually had one, I don't recall ever > closing it in the 7 years or so that I owned that boat. > > I'd definitely make a point of checking that oil and seeing if there > actually was any water intrusion. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24412|24397|2010-11-05 18:04:53|David Frantz|Re: Seawater in engine|If that is the case fixing the engine is probably very worthwhile. You could get it runnimg in place following some of the suggestions here. If you do that I'd change the oil & filter constantly after even a few hours of operation. The idea being to filter out as much crap as possible and then switch back to a normal service plan. Personally I'd pull the engine and give it a quick rebuild. It would lead me to piece of mind. As to the raw water intake, nope that doesn't make sense. Generally you would think of the cooling sustem as sealed from the rest of the machine. So either there is a seal leaking is a crack. At least in my estimation. This boat isn't located where the water might have frozen? That could indicated the possibility of more extensive damage. Others might have more info on leaks like this in marine engines but I can't believe the syphoning as described is normal. David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Nov 5, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Mark Hamill wrote: > Hi all: Great advice. The engine was not running. Evidently he forgot to close the raw water intake valve and it syphoned that way. Does that make sense?? > If I hadn't driven the owner up to the boat I doubt if I would have been able to purchase it. There were two other people interested and waiting. Well, I hope this works out--I know I am very excited about it. If anybody has more thoughts about the motor--fire away. > Thanks, MarkH > > ps: h---Email me directly about the catamaran--it is in Courtenay. mhamill1@... It is a Wharram Tangaroa 4 ketch with two Force 10 propane cabin heaters and a Force 10 Kerosene Cooker/oven. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24413|24413|2010-11-06 08:33:08|bert andjan|Re: Rough Weather|Underscoring the relatively safer steel hulled variety of sailing yachts is this truly sad loss of two recognized competant sailors lost when their craft hit an island... perhaps the eighty footer didn't completely brake up, but two lives were lost just the same.   The relative security of a steel hull would have been much preferred.   Here the lesson also includes not putting all your faith in the gps.   Lessons learned.   An avoidable tragedy.   http://www.sailingmates.com/yourGPScankillyou.htm Bert and Jan in Michigan| 24414|24413|2010-11-06 20:16:55|Paul Wilson|Re: Your GPS Can Kill You....|Subject retitled.... Articles like this one push my buttons.... Having sailed for 8 years in Fiji in remote areas and (knock on wood) never touched a reef, I have a huge amount of faith in GPS. It has saved my ass more than once and allowed me to sail in remote, badly charted areas again and again with very few problems. The secret is knowing its limitations and actually using it properly. The people in the article didn't and made the cardinal sin of passing too close to an island. This was an error in judgment that had nothing to do with the GPS. To quote: What is difficult to understand is why a visual reference was not made to the islet. The crew report seeing the high ground to the south of the islet when at least 4 miles away. At 3 miles out a course was shaped to steer roughly for the northern edge of the islet. They could see the whole islet including the low ledge to the north when 1 mile away. The Inquiry cannot understand why the course was not adjusted to pass clear to the north and why with 18 people onboard somebody did not draw attention to the fact the boat was heading straight for the rocks. Why the hell would you sail so close to an island in the middle of the night? This is just stupid and has nothing to do with GPS......If I can navigate safely single-handed while sleep deprived, why can't a "tired" skipper with a crew of 17 do it? Why weren't they steering towards a waypoint about 3 miles off the island rather than trying to skirt the island? If they were doing that, any errors in position would show up immediately as a wonky (jumpy) course, heading or speed. This is pretty basic stuff, in my opinion..... The problem with these articles is the implied message is the GPS is unreliable when in actual fact it was the skipper who was unreliable. I have seen many people run boats up on reefs and when I ask them "Why didn't you use your GPS?" they say "I don't trust it." This makes no sense. I have seen people hit reefs leaving a harbor when if they had the GPS turned on when entering the harbor, they could have simply followed their old track out. This also makes no sense. The worst thing I saw was experienced offshore sailors doing transit sights with a sextant and compass bearings while stuck in the middle of a reef system, when a gps would have given them an accurate position if they simply turned it on..... These experienced, 40,000+ mile sailors in my opinion, should have thrown away their sextant and spent 10 minutes reading the GPS manual. They would have been far better off.... In summary, proper use of a GPS keeps people off a reef, it doesn't put them on it. A bad carpenter always blames his tools. Sorry for my rant, Paul On 11/7/2010 1:32 AM, bert andjan wrote: > > Underscoring the relatively safer steel hulled variety of sailing > yachts is this > truly sad loss of two recognized competant sailors lost when their > craft hit an > island... perhaps the eighty footer didn't completely brake up, but > two lives > were lost just the same. The relative security of a steel hull would > have been > much preferred. Here the lesson also includes not putting all your > faith in > the gps. Lessons learned. An avoidable > tragedy. http://www.sailingmates.com/yourGPScankillyou.htm > > Bert and Jan in Michigan > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.864 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3239 - Release Date: 11/05/10 20:34:00 > | 24415|24413|2010-11-06 22:06:18|David Frantz|Re: Your GPS Can Kill You....|Hi Paul; In general I agree with your position except for the point about the sextant. It is the simple issue of having a backup, there are good reasons to not rely on one device or technology. David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Nov 6, 2010, at 8:16 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > Subject retitled.... > > Articles like this one push my buttons.... > > Having sailed for 8 years in Fiji in remote areas and (knock on wood) > never touched a reef, I have a huge amount of faith in GPS. It has saved > my ass more than once and allowed me to sail in remote, badly charted > areas again and again with very few problems. The secret is knowing its > limitations and actually using it properly. The people in the article > didn't and made the cardinal sin of passing too close to an island. This > was an error in judgment that had nothing to do with the GPS. > > To quote: > > What is difficult to understand is why a visual reference was not made > to the islet. The crew report seeing the high ground to the south of the > islet when at least 4 miles away. At 3 miles out a course was shaped to > steer roughly for the northern edge of the islet. They could see the > whole islet including the low ledge to the north when 1 mile away. The > Inquiry cannot understand why the course was not adjusted to pass clear > to the north and why with 18 people onboard somebody did not draw > attention to the fact the boat was heading straight for the rocks. > > Why the hell would you sail so close to an island in the middle of the > night? This is just stupid and has nothing to do with GPS......If I can > navigate safely single-handed while sleep deprived, why can't a "tired" > skipper with a crew of 17 do it? Why weren't they steering towards a > waypoint about 3 miles off the island rather than trying to skirt the > island? If they were doing that, any errors in position would show up > immediately as a wonky (jumpy) course, heading or speed. This is pretty > basic stuff, in my opinion..... > > The problem with these articles is the implied message is the GPS is > unreliable when in actual fact it was the skipper who was unreliable. I > have seen many people run boats up on reefs and when I ask them "Why > didn't you use your GPS?" they say "I don't trust it." This makes no > sense. I have seen people hit reefs leaving a harbor when if they had > the GPS turned on when entering the harbor, they could have simply > followed their old track out. This also makes no sense. The worst thing > I saw was experienced offshore sailors doing transit sights with a > sextant and compass bearings while stuck in the middle of a reef system, > when a gps would have given them an accurate position if they simply > turned it on..... These experienced, 40,000+ mile sailors in my opinion, > should have thrown away their sextant and spent 10 minutes reading the > GPS manual. They would have been far better off.... > > In summary, proper use of a GPS keeps people off a reef, it doesn't put > them on it. A bad carpenter always blames his tools. > > Sorry for my rant, Paul > > On 11/7/2010 1:32 AM, bert andjan wrote: >> >> Underscoring the relatively safer steel hulled variety of sailing >> yachts is this >> truly sad loss of two recognized competant sailors lost when their >> craft hit an >> island... perhaps the eighty footer didn't completely brake up, but >> two lives >> were lost just the same. The relative security of a steel hull would >> have been >> much preferred. Here the lesson also includes not putting all your >> faith in >> the gps. Lessons learned. An avoidable >> tragedy. http://www.sailingmates.com/yourGPScankillyou.htm >> >> Bert and Jan in Michigan >> >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.864 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3239 - Release Date: 11/05/10 20:34:00 >> > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24416|24413|2010-11-06 22:32:01|Paul Wilson|Re: Your GPS Can Kill You....|I gave my sextant away when it became apparent that the cost of a new nautical almanac shipped to Fiji was going to cost more than a new GPS. You can get electronic versions but what is the point if you are trying to stay away from electronics in your back-up system? I seldom hear sextants even discussed among cruising boats. I suspect very few have one. If the global gps system went down now, it would cause worldwide chaos since it is in such widespread use. I am not saying the GPS system going down will never happen but I think I have better things to worry about. As an aside, when I originally left Canada for Hawaii, I was told to sail south and then turn right when the butter melts.....it just might have worked. Cheers,Paul On 11/7/2010 3:05 PM, David Frantz wrote: > > Hi Paul; > > In general I agree with your position except for the point about the > sextant. It is the simple issue of having a backup, there are good > reasons to not rely on one device or technology. > > David A Frantz > > | 24417|24413|2010-11-07 10:37:48|Gary H. Lucas|Re: Your GPS Can Kill You....|Paul, This reminds me of a great article in one of the sailing magazines a few years ago about Mike Richey and his boat Jester. At the time he had just turned 90 and completed his 26? Atlantic crossing, on Jester his 26 foot folkboat. Richey was famous for his work with the British Navy on celestial navigation, and had actually authored the reduction tables they used. The interviewer happened to ask him about navigation on this last trip. He reached into a drawer and pulled out a handheld GPS, which he had used on this trip. He didn't have a sextant on board either. The interviewer said "I thought you were purist who liked to keep things simple, why the GPS?" He replied "I'm lying comfortably in my bunk during a storm. I press a couple of buttons and I know where I am to within 50 feet, what could be simpler? Besides, it's not like I need practice with a sextant!" About 10 years ago a vendor at the Annapolis show told me that GPS had actually increased his sextant sales dramatically. He said he thought it was because now that people on a voyage could know exactly where they were at all times it was much easier to actually learn how to use a sextant, and a fun challenge to see how accurate you could be with a sextant. I have to agree, on reading about the crash my first thought was what a bunch of idiots! Then there was the guy who ran his brand new 72 foot power yacht onto the rocks at 25 knots under autopilot, while screwing his girlfriend down below! Gary H. Lucas -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 8:16 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Your GPS Can Kill You.... Subject retitled.... Articles like this one push my buttons.... Having sailed for 8 years in Fiji in remote areas and (knock on wood) never touched a reef, I have a huge amount of faith in GPS. It has saved my ass more than once and allowed me to sail in remote, badly charted areas again and again with very few problems. The secret is knowing its limitations and actually using it properly. The people in the article didn't and made the cardinal sin of passing too close to an island. This was an error in judgment that had nothing to do with the GPS. To quote: What is difficult to understand is why a visual reference was not made to the islet. The crew report seeing the high ground to the south of the islet when at least 4 miles away. At 3 miles out a course was shaped to steer roughly for the northern edge of the islet. They could see the whole islet including the low ledge to the north when 1 mile away. The Inquiry cannot understand why the course was not adjusted to pass clear to the north and why with 18 people onboard somebody did not draw attention to the fact the boat was heading straight for the rocks. Why the hell would you sail so close to an island in the middle of the night? This is just stupid and has nothing to do with GPS......If I can navigate safely single-handed while sleep deprived, why can't a "tired" skipper with a crew of 17 do it? Why weren't they steering towards a waypoint about 3 miles off the island rather than trying to skirt the island? If they were doing that, any errors in position would show up immediately as a wonky (jumpy) course, heading or speed. This is pretty basic stuff, in my opinion..... The problem with these articles is the implied message is the GPS is unreliable when in actual fact it was the skipper who was unreliable. I have seen many people run boats up on reefs and when I ask them "Why didn't you use your GPS?" they say "I don't trust it." This makes no sense. I have seen people hit reefs leaving a harbor when if they had the GPS turned on when entering the harbor, they could have simply followed their old track out. This also makes no sense. The worst thing I saw was experienced offshore sailors doing transit sights with a sextant and compass bearings while stuck in the middle of a reef system, when a gps would have given them an accurate position if they simply turned it on..... These experienced, 40,000+ mile sailors in my opinion, should have thrown away their sextant and spent 10 minutes reading the GPS manual. They would have been far better off.... In summary, proper use of a GPS keeps people off a reef, it doesn't put them on it. A bad carpenter always blames his tools. Sorry for my rant, Paul On 11/7/2010 1:32 AM, bert andjan wrote: > > Underscoring the relatively safer steel hulled variety of sailing > yachts is this > truly sad loss of two recognized competant sailors lost when their > craft hit an > island... perhaps the eighty footer didn't completely brake up, but > two lives > were lost just the same. The relative security of a steel hull would > have been > much preferred. Here the lesson also includes not putting all your > faith in > the gps. Lessons learned. An avoidable > tragedy. http://www.sailingmates.com/yourGPScankillyou.htm > > Bert and Jan in Michigan > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.864 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3239 - Release Date: 11/05/10 > 20:34:00 > ------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links Gary H. Lucas | 24418|24413|2010-11-07 11:05:02|David Frantz|Re: Your GPS Can Kill You....|Somethings in life just take priority. LOL ;) Besides they say all that blood leaving your brain cause one not to think rationally. David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Nov 7, 2010, at 10:37 AM, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: .......... > > I have to agree, on reading about the crash my first thought was what a > bunch of idiots! Then there was the guy who ran his brand new 72 foot power > yacht onto the rocks at 25 knots under autopilot, while screwing his > girlfriend down below! > > Gary H. Lucas > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Wilson > Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 8:16 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Your GPS Can Kill You.... > > Subject retitled.... > > Articles like this one push my buttons.... > > Having sailed for 8 years in Fiji in remote areas and (knock on wood) > never touched a reef, I have a huge amount of faith in GPS. It has saved > my ass more than once and allowed me to sail in remote, badly charted > areas again and again with very few problems. The secret is knowing its > limitations and actually using it properly. The people in the article > didn't and made the cardinal sin of passing too close to an island. This > was an error in judgment that had nothing to do with the GPS. > > To quote: > > What is difficult to understand is why a visual reference was not made > to the islet. The crew report seeing the high ground to the south of the > islet when at least 4 miles away. At 3 miles out a course was shaped to > steer roughly for the northern edge of the islet. They could see the > whole islet including the low ledge to the north when 1 mile away. The > Inquiry cannot understand why the course was not adjusted to pass clear > to the north and why with 18 people onboard somebody did not draw > attention to the fact the boat was heading straight for the rocks. > > Why the hell would you sail so close to an island in the middle of the > night? This is just stupid and has nothing to do with GPS......If I can > navigate safely single-handed while sleep deprived, why can't a "tired" > skipper with a crew of 17 do it? Why weren't they steering towards a > waypoint about 3 miles off the island rather than trying to skirt the > island? If they were doing that, any errors in position would show up > immediately as a wonky (jumpy) course, heading or speed. This is pretty > basic stuff, in my opinion..... > > The problem with these articles is the implied message is the GPS is > unreliable when in actual fact it was the skipper who was unreliable. I > have seen many people run boats up on reefs and when I ask them "Why > didn't you use your GPS?" they say "I don't trust it." This makes no > sense. I have seen people hit reefs leaving a harbor when if they had > the GPS turned on when entering the harbor, they could have simply > followed their old track out. This also makes no sense. The worst thing > I saw was experienced offshore sailors doing transit sights with a > sextant and compass bearings while stuck in the middle of a reef system, > when a gps would have given them an accurate position if they simply > turned it on..... These experienced, 40,000+ mile sailors in my opinion, > should have thrown away their sextant and spent 10 minutes reading the > GPS manual. They would have been far better off.... > > In summary, proper use of a GPS keeps people off a reef, it doesn't put > them on it. A bad carpenter always blames his tools. > > Sorry for my rant, Paul > > On 11/7/2010 1:32 AM, bert andjan wrote: >> >> Underscoring the relatively safer steel hulled variety of sailing >> yachts is this >> truly sad loss of two recognized competant sailors lost when their >> craft hit an >> island... perhaps the eighty footer didn't completely brake up, but >> two lives >> were lost just the same. The relative security of a steel hull would >> have been >> much preferred. Here the lesson also includes not putting all your >> faith in >> the gps. Lessons learned. An avoidable >> tragedy. http://www.sailingmates.com/yourGPScankillyou.htm >> >> Bert and Jan in Michigan >> >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.864 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3239 - Release Date: 11/05/10 >> 20:34:00 >> > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24419|24419|2010-11-07 11:08:46|Mark Hamill|Yanmar manuals online|Yanmar marine manuals available free as PDF,s at http://www.motoren.ath.cx/menus/yanmar.php MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24420|24413|2010-11-07 11:17:00|Mark Hamill|Re: Your GPS Can Kill You....|Then there was the guy who ran his brand new 72 foot power yacht onto the rocks at 25 knots under autopilot, while screwing his girlfriend down below! Gives a whole new dimension to the expression "I felt the earth move." after sex. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24421|24413|2010-11-07 12:22:31|Ben Okopnik|Re: Your GPS Can Kill You....|On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 03:31:58PM +1300, Paul Wilson wrote: > I gave my sextant away when it became apparent that the cost of a new > nautical almanac shipped to Fiji was going to cost more than a new GPS. > You can get electronic versions but what is the point if you are trying > to stay away from electronics in your back-up system? Well, no - having an almanac shipped to you in Fiji would not be smart. Especially because it's not necessary. I've carried a *one-page* perpetual almanac for the past 19 years, and it works just fine. No electronics, no shipping to Fiji - and perfectly fine, precision-wise, for small-boat navigation. So that's not an actual problem. Next? Incidentally, I don't carry all that other paraphernalia either. A set of S-tables - that's a 15-page brochure - takes care of all the sight reduction info that's necessary. Celestial nav is *not* some mysterious, complicated spinning of prayer wheels; it's a dirt-simple, rock-solid method of locating yourself if you learn the right things. (And yes, I do have a GPS on board; I even have a backup for it. But I still carry my sextants - one good one and a cheap backup for it - and keep in occassional practice.) > I seldom hear sextants even discussed among cruising boats. I suspect > very few have one. If the global gps system went down now, it would > cause worldwide chaos since it is in such widespread use. I am not > saying the GPS system going down will never happen but I think I have > better things to worry about. There's a few other scenarios that apply here, though. Running out of batteries for it. Complete loss of power on board. Dropping the GPS and damaging it. Losing it overboard. Lightning strike that fries your electronics. Poor reception. Wanting a position double-check - y'know, prudent mariners do that - because your last GPS fix just doesn't agree with your mental model of where you should be. > As an aside, when I originally left Canada for Hawaii, I was told to > sail south and then turn right when the butter melts.....it just might > have worked. [grin] Yeah, using a thermometer as a navigational instrument is one of my favorite methods. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24422|24245|2010-11-07 22:17:06|GP|Re: Rough weather|And I was wondering why you got that eye laser treatment done last year. Gary --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I have often hit the rocks at hull speed, then backed off without a care in the world. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 07:20:10PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > > These experiences are common with steel boats. That is why many > > > cruisers choose metal for their second cruising boats, after having > > > the shit scared out of them many times and seeing first hand how much > > > punishment a steel boat can take. > > > > When I was anchored in Mayaguana, Bahamas, one of our standard ways of > > entertaining ourselves was to watch the boats coming in, most of which > > ran up on the reef - Bruce Van Sant's guide to the area, which many > > considered to be the bible for cruising, had the wrong GPS coordinates > > for the entrance, so these fools rushed in where angels feared to tread. > > "A prudent mariner never relies on a single source of information for > > navigation"...) All of them ran around screaming like crazy people when > > it happened - and I have no doubt that pretty much all of those boats > > got pretty badly damaged. At least one of them, a gold-plater called > > "Maranatha", limped back to Georgetown and spent the next 6 months > > getting her hull repaired (that was all OK, though; their church bought > > them the boat and was footing their bills, 'cause they were on a mission > > to bring religion to the heathens. Brand-new 50+-foot boat, that was. > > Nice work if you can get it. I guess.) > > > > On the other hand, a guy in a steel boat - yep, our kind come in the > > foolish variety as well :) - ran up on it doing about 5 knots... quietly > > got into his dinghy, laid out his anchor, kedged himself off, and then > > worked his way into the anchorage. I was impressed as hell. His attitude > > spoke volumes about his mindset regarding his trust in the boat, and it > > made for quite the contrast with the usual run of boaters. > > > > > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > | 24424|24413|2010-11-08 22:22:11|Matt Malone|Re: Your GPS Can Kill You....|And turn a sextant horizontally, and it accurately measures the angle between two objects from your current position. Repeat with two more objects and one has an absolute fix on a local chart -- all without worrying what the local magnetic deviation is or what geodetic or other questionable heritage a chart was based on. So long as the local surveyor's instrument was not warped one will be just fine. This can give more absolute accuracy and more certainty of your position. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 12:22:18 -0500 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Your GPS Can Kill You.... On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 03:31:58PM +1300, Paul Wilson wrote: > I gave my sextant away when it became apparent that the cost of a new > nautical almanac shipped to Fiji was going to cost more than a new GPS. > You can get electronic versions but what is the point if you are trying > to stay away from electronics in your back-up system? Well, no - having an almanac shipped to you in Fiji would not be smart. Especially because it's not necessary. I've carried a *one-page* perpetual almanac for the past 19 years, and it works just fine. No electronics, no shipping to Fiji - and perfectly fine, precision-wise, for small-boat navigation. So that's not an actual problem. Next? Incidentally, I don't carry all that other paraphernalia either. A set of S-tables - that's a 15-page brochure - takes care of all the sight reduction info that's necessary. Celestial nav is *not* some mysterious, complicated spinning of prayer wheels; it's a dirt-simple, rock-solid method of locating yourself if you learn the right things. (And yes, I do have a GPS on board; I even have a backup for it. But I still carry my sextants - one good one and a cheap backup for it - and keep in occassional practice.) > I seldom hear sextants even discussed among cruising boats. I suspect > very few have one. If the global gps system went down now, it would > cause worldwide chaos since it is in such widespread use. I am not > saying the GPS system going down will never happen but I think I have > better things to worry about. There's a few other scenarios that apply here, though. Running out of batteries for it. Complete loss of power on board. Dropping the GPS and damaging it. Losing it overboard. Lightning strike that fries your electronics. Poor reception. Wanting a position double-check - y'know, prudent mariners do that - because your last GPS fix just doesn't agree with your mental model of where you should be. > As an aside, when I originally left Canada for Hawaii, I was told to > sail south and then turn right when the butter melts.....it just might > have worked. [grin] Yeah, using a thermometer as a navigational instrument is one of my favorite methods. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24425|24397|2010-11-08 22:38:11|Matt Malone|Re: Seawater in engine|Speaking of farm country, I unseized the same farm tractor engine twice in a decade. I removed the head. Luckily the engine was not seized at TDC. I put a piece of softwood on each piston, and gently tapped them. Once I got it to move, I put oil on the piston head and cranked the engine over by hand, cleaning off the soiled oil and putting new oil on from time to time. After it turned over smoothly, I put the head back on, and started it up. Cause was rainwater entering the exhaust and sitting on the tops of the pistons (an not starting it for a year), rusting them to the sleeves. I imagine salt water would act far more quickly. First thing is, wash it with fresh (rain) water to get the salt off / out. Then use WD-40 or 99% ethanol to displace / remove the water. Then spray it with oil, any oil will do to start. Then replace the engine oil. That should greatly slow the rusting process. Matt CC: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: websterindustro@... Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 03:25:01 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Seawater in engine I grew up infarm country and one farmer was well know for his modest maintenance skills. In other words he siezed more than engine. Often the engine can be repaired without huge expenses. The important thing is to not assume the engine is trashed until you have proven so to yourself. Diesels are relatively simple machine, this should be kept in mind. Well outside of the injectors they are. In any event get as much info as possible with respect to how it failed with the water is the first step. If water was sucked in during operation the damage could be extensive. If the water came in while sitting in port over a long period of time there may be mote hope. I like your idea with the kerosene. I might even suggest putting the whole engine in a barrel or tube to soak a bit. Admittedly I'm biased to pulling the engine and tearing it down for a good look. Mainly because it is a used motor and I'd rather know from first hand examination that it is worth stuffing back into the ship. Lets face it water damage may not be the whole story here. David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Nov 4, 2010, at 9:42 PM, wild_explorer wrote: > IF it was seized just because of "sitting" (or water got in when not running), remove injector/s, drain out oil, put oil drain plug back in. > > Disconnect intake and exhaust + plug it. Or skip this step, If you are sure, that liquid from cylinder/s will not leak trough them, you can leave it on (without disconnecting). > > Fill it up from the TOP of the cylinder/cylinders by kerosene (or mix of kerosene and car automatic transmission oil)- trough removed injector's opening (or opened valve if unable to remove injector/s). Leave it for several days, top it off regularly until all engine filled up. > > It might help. After about 2 weeks drain kerosene/mixture out (save it just in case). If after this, you will not be able to turn engine SLOWLY (not by starter) - too bad. It might have more severe damage. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: >> >> Engines sieze up for a lot of reasons. If the boat is new to you find out how much a complete overhaul will cost and what the exact problem is. Then compare that with buying another engine. >> >> Can you do a rebuild yourself? That would save you some money, especially if the damage is minor. Also find out if the engine was running at the time the water was pulled in. If water got into a cylinder while running or cranking the damage could be pretty bad. On the other hand if the engine just sat there and rusted a few parts together if might be a bit easier to fix. >> >> Oh one more thing find a service manual for the engine. A manual will give you an idea of the complexity involved in tepairing it. >> >> >> >> David A Frantz >> >> websterindustro@... >> Sent from my iPhone. >> >> On Nov 4, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Mark Hamill wrote: >> >>> Hi: >>> I Just bought a 1984 36 footer in Campbell River with an engine that >>> apparently siphoned seawater into the engine--a Yanmar 3GMD. The thing is >>> seized. Any thoughts on how to proceed?? MarkH >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------ >>> >>> To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >>> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24426|24413|2010-11-08 23:17:51|Ben Okopnik|Re: Your GPS Can Kill You....|On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 10:18:52PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > And turn a sextant horizontally, and it accurately measures the angle > between two objects from your current position. Repeat with two more > objects and one has an absolute fix on a local chart -- all without > worrying what the local magnetic deviation is or what geodetic or > other questionable heritage a chart was based on. Yep. For anything you need to measure but can't lay your hands on, it's about as useful as a measuring tape. It also keeps your mind limber on basic geometry, which can be a *very* useful tool indeed. You can tell how much leeway your boat makes by keeping a constant bearing to an object on shore and measuring the angle of your wake. If you're racing, it can tell you very precisely whether the other guy is gaining on you or not. It can tell you whether you're staying parallel to shore, getting closer or moving farther away - just pick some random feature and measure it. You can learn, once and for all, just exactly how high off the water your own masthead is - antennas and all - without having to screw around with tape measures plus estimated antenna length minus mount height, blah, blah, blah (and you *do* need to know it exactly if you're going to go under bridges.) Tying a yardstick to the mast makes this even easier... Here's a fun one: if the thing you're measuring covers 8 degrees or less, convert the angle to radians (1 radian ~= 57°) and you've got a nice easy relationship between distance and height as long as they're expressed in the same units: Height = Distance * angle(rad) Or you could use a conversion factor and go with convenient units: Distance(nautical miles) = 0.566 * Height(feet) / angle(minutes) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24427|24397|2010-11-08 23:59:18|David Frantz|Re: Seawater in engine|Back in the day around my fathers place there was a nieghbor with an old CAT bulldozer. It sat out in a field and would often go for a year or more without running. The great thing about diesels is that thier simple nature means they can withstand a lot of neglect. This is why I wouldn't give up on this engine. David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Nov 8, 2010, at 10:38 PM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > Speaking of farm country, I unseized the same farm tractor engine twice in a decade. I removed the head. Luckily the engine was not seized at TDC. I put a piece of softwood on each piston, and gently tapped them. Once I got it to move, I put oil on the piston head and cranked the engine over by hand, cleaning off the soiled oil and putting new oil on from time to time. After it turned over smoothly, I put the head back on, and started it up. Cause was rainwater entering the exhaust and sitting on the tops of the pistons (an not starting it for a year), rusting them to the sleeves. I imagine salt water would act far more quickly. > > First thing is, wash it with fresh (rain) water to get the salt off / out. Then use WD-40 or 99% ethanol to displace / remove the water. Then spray it with oil, any oil will do to start. Then replace the engine oil. That should greatly slow the rusting process. > > Matt > > CC: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: websterindustro@... > Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 03:25:01 -0400 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Seawater in engine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I grew up infarm country and one farmer was well know for his modest maintenance skills. In other words he siezed more than engine. Often the engine can be repaired without huge expenses. The important thing is to not assume the engine is trashed until you have proven so to yourself. > > > > Diesels are relatively simple machine, this should be kept in mind. Well outside of the injectors they are. In any event get as much info as possible with respect to how it failed with the water is the first step. If water was sucked in during operation the damage could be extensive. If the water came in while sitting in port over a long period of time there may be mote hope. > > > > I like your idea with the kerosene. I might even suggest putting the whole engine in a barrel or tube to soak a bit. Admittedly I'm biased to pulling the engine and tearing it down for a good look. Mainly because it is a used motor and I'd rather know from first hand examination that it is worth stuffing back into the ship. Lets face it water damage may not be the whole story here. > > > > David A Frantz > > > > websterindustro@... > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > > On Nov 4, 2010, at 9:42 PM, wild_explorer wrote: > > > >> IF it was seized just because of "sitting" (or water got in when not running), remove injector/s, drain out oil, put oil drain plug back in. > >> > >> Disconnect intake and exhaust + plug it. Or skip this step, If you are sure, that liquid from cylinder/s will not leak trough them, you can leave it on (without disconnecting). > >> > >> Fill it up from the TOP of the cylinder/cylinders by kerosene (or mix of kerosene and car automatic transmission oil)- trough removed injector's opening (or opened valve if unable to remove injector/s). Leave it for several days, top it off regularly until all engine filled up. > >> > >> It might help. After about 2 weeks drain kerosene/mixture out (save it just in case). If after this, you will not be able to turn engine SLOWLY (not by starter) - too bad. It might have more severe damage. > >> > >> > >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > >>> > >>> Engines sieze up for a lot of reasons. If the boat is new to you find out how much a complete overhaul will cost and what the exact problem is. Then compare that with buying another engine. > >>> > >>> Can you do a rebuild yourself? That would save you some money, especially if the damage is minor. Also find out if the engine was running at the time the water was pulled in. If water got into a cylinder while running or cranking the damage could be pretty bad. On the other hand if the engine just sat there and rusted a few parts together if might be a bit easier to fix. > >>> > >>> Oh one more thing find a service manual for the engine. A manual will give you an idea of the complexity involved in tepairing it. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> David A Frantz > >>> > >>> websterindustro@... > >>> Sent from my iPhone. > >>> > >>> On Nov 4, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Mark Hamill wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi: > >>>> I Just bought a 1984 36 footer in Campbell River with an engine that > >>>> apparently siphoned seawater into the engine--a Yanmar 3GMD. The thing is > >>>> seized. Any thoughts on how to proceed?? MarkH > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------------ > >>>> > >>>> To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > >>>> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------ > >> > >> To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > >> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24428|24357|2010-11-09 07:48:45|scott|Re: used DVD|Damn Brent that's pretty harsh.. all his post says is that he no longer needs the one he bought and is selling it, not that he made a copy and is selling it. As long as it is the original copy it is his to sell as he wants. If someone is making copies and selling them then I'm with you, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Pretty sleazy , buying a copyrighted DVD, copying it for your own use, then selling it, especially when you are screwing someone who has done so much for all of us, like setting up this site. Sounds downright "Christian".I think Alex deserves some payment, seeing how he hasn't yet covered the cost of making the DVD yet, and how we have all benefited so much from his volentary efforts. .. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Carl Anderson wrote: > > > > Anyone wanting a used DVD about building the Brent 36' I have one that I > > no longer need. > > > > Carl > > sv-mom.com > > > | 24429|24357|2010-11-09 09:28:57|Matt Malone|Re: used DVD|That struck me the same way. I assumed that Brent knew something for certain that we did not. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: audeojude@... Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 12:48:44 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: used DVD Damn Brent that's pretty harsh.. all his post says is that he no longer needs the one he bought and is selling it, not that he made a copy and is selling it. As long as it is the original copy it is his to sell as he wants. If someone is making copies and selling them then I'm with you, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Pretty sleazy , buying a copyrighted DVD, copying it for your own use, then selling it, especially when you are screwing someone who has done so much for all of us, like setting up this site. Sounds downright "Christian".I think Alex deserves some payment, seeing how he hasn't yet covered the cost of making the DVD yet, and how we have all benefited so much from his volentary efforts. .. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Carl Anderson wrote: > > > > Anyone wanting a used DVD about building the Brent 36' I have one that I > > no longer need. > > > > Carl > > sv-mom.com > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24430|24357|2010-11-09 14:05:21|Carl Anderson|Re: used DVD|All I have done on this forum & with my web site are things to facilitate and encourage people to build one of Brents's boats thereby helping him produce some income. I encourage everyone reading my website to purchase Alex's DVD as well as Brent's book. I have no use for the DVD that I bought from Alex in 2006 as I have a 98% finished boat and want to spend my time sailing not building. If for some reason Brent thinks that I am fucking him or Alex over then it is his god damn problem. Carl Better to keep one's mouth shut & be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt - very old saying On 11/9/2010 7:25 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > That struck me the same way. I assumed that Brent knew something for > certain that we did not. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: audeojude@... > Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 12:48:44 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: used DVD > > Damn > Brent that's pretty harsh.. all his post says is that he no longer > needs the one he bought and is selling it, not that he made a copy and > is selling it. As long as it is the original copy it is his to sell as > he wants. If someone is making copies and selling them then I'm with > you, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. > > scott > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "brentswain38" > wrote: > > > > > > Pretty sleazy , buying a copyrighted DVD, copying it for your own > use, then selling it, especially when you are screwing someone who has > done so much for all of us, like setting up this site. Sounds downright > "Christian".I think Alex deserves some payment, seeing how he hasn't > yet covered the cost of making the DVD yet, and how we have all > benefited so much from his volentary efforts. .. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Carl Anderson wrote: > > > > > > > > Anyone wanting a used DVD about building the Brent 36' I have one > that I > > > > no longer need. > > > > > > > > Carl > > > > sv-mom.com > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > | 24432|24357|2010-11-09 14:27:50|brentswain38|Re: used DVD|You are right . It's definitely not the same as selling more than one copy. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Alex told me he copied it to ho is computer before offering it for sale. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > That struck me the same way. I assumed that Brent knew something for certain that we did not. > > > > Matt > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: audeojude@ > > Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 12:48:44 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: used DVD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Damn > > Brent that's pretty harsh.. all his post says is that he no longer > > needs the one he bought and is selling it, not that he made a copy and > > is selling it. As long as it is the original copy it is his to sell as > > he wants. If someone is making copies and selling them then I'm with > > you, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. > > > > scott > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Pretty sleazy , buying a copyrighted DVD, copying it for your own > > use, then selling it, especially when you are screwing someone who has > > done so much for all of us, like setting up this site. Sounds downright > > "Christian".I think Alex deserves some payment, seeing how he hasn't > > yet covered the cost of making the DVD yet, and how we have all > > benefited so much from his volentary efforts. .. > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Carl Anderson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone wanting a used DVD about building the Brent 36' I have one that I > > > > > > no longer need. > > > > > > > > > > > > Carl > > > > > > sv-mom.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 24433|24357|2010-11-09 18:05:35|Alex Christie|Re: used DVD|I wasn't going to air this here, as I know how this medium promotes flame-wars, but before I had a chance to contact Carl directly, this came out. I thank anyone, including Carl, who promotes the origami concepts and appreciate anyone promoting my DVD. It's just that copying the DVD onto your hard drive, as Carl had told me last summer he did, thereby still actually "having" the DVD in another format to enjoy, then selling the original copy is a bit harsh on me. Perhaps it means nothing to anyone who has no debts and no extra costs (kids) in life, but it smarts for me. It's sort of like scanning Brent's book or plans onto a hard drive, then selling the original, or copying Carl's CD rom and selling the disc. Is it ok to do that? I don't think so. Even doing it once is hurtful to the originator of the book or CD. There's certainly nothing stopping anyone from doing that. I didn't copy-protect my DVDs because it was just more complication, and I trusted everyone on this site to not copy it. I can see how everyone thinks that it's no harm done, all fair game, but it hurts the one who put their life into producing the film to begin with. No one here realizes the fact that in making the DVD, the time and money I spent on it actually meant that I didn't have enough to keep the hull to finish. It wasn't only the cost in equipment, or the cost in having Brent do things that I could have done had I not had to hold a camera, but the loss of earning time over the nearly one year working on the film post-production. We at beans and rice. I had to choose between supporting my family, or finishing the hull. The movie pretty much cost me my boat, ironically. Was it worth it? Well, whenever anyone buys a new copy of my DVD and tells me that they learned something valuable from it, that's wonderful and it makes it feel that it was all worth the sacrifice. I'll build another some day, and complete the second and third DVD sets. If you keep an electronic copy of my DVD, then you still have it. If you sell the original and keep that copy on you hard drive, you've violated copyright. If you want to promote the concept and show the DVD to others, go ahead, but don't make a copy and then flog the original, it's not really cricket. All for the gain of a few bucks for yourself and the loss of a few for me. Please don't let this fan out into a pissing match about copyright law. All that needs be said here is that my feelings are hurt that someone would make a copy then sell the original. Yes, people do it with the big Hollywood movies all the time, but I'm just one person to whom every DVD purchase makes a difference in terms of what I gave up to make it. Case closed. Alex --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Carl Anderson wrote: > > All I have done on this forum & with my web site are things to > facilitate and encourage people to build one of Brents's boats thereby > helping him produce some income. I encourage everyone reading my > website to purchase Alex's DVD as well as Brent's book. I have no use > for the DVD that I bought from Alex in 2006 as I have a 98% finished > boat and want to spend my time sailing not building. > > If for some reason Brent thinks that I am fucking him or Alex over then > it is his god damn problem. > > Carl > > Better to keep one's mouth shut & be thought a fool than to open it and > remove all doubt - very old saying > > > On 11/9/2010 7:25 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > That struck me the same way. I assumed that Brent knew something for > > certain that we did not. > > > > Matt > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: audeojude@... > > Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 12:48:44 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: used DVD > > > > Damn > > Brent that's pretty harsh.. all his post says is that he no longer > > needs the one he bought and is selling it, not that he made a copy and > > is selling it. As long as it is the original copy it is his to sell as > > he wants. If someone is making copies and selling them then I'm with > > you, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. > > > > scott > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , "brentswain38" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Pretty sleazy , buying a copyrighted DVD, copying it for your own > > use, then selling it, especially when you are screwing someone who has > > done so much for all of us, like setting up this site. Sounds downright > > "Christian".I think Alex deserves some payment, seeing how he hasn't > > yet covered the cost of making the DVD yet, and how we have all > > benefited so much from his volentary efforts. .. > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , Carl Anderson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone wanting a used DVD about building the Brent 36' I have one > > that I > > > > > > no longer need. > > > > > > > > > > > > Carl > > > > > > sv-mom.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > | 24434|24405|2010-11-09 18:27:54|brentswain38|Re: 40ft steel motorsailer boat project|A friend, with a lot of cruising experience bought a steel boat with a teak overlay deck. The first nite he owned it , he took a crowbar to the teak, and by morning, the shore was lined with teak( makes good firewood. ) He then had all the holes welded shut, and a pipe welded to the bulwark cap, to replace the teak one. . You can hear where foam has separated from the steel, by dragging your fingernails over it and listening for the hollow sound. If there is no paint behind the foam, and it is rusting , it should all be pulled out, and the hull sandblasted and given at least three coats of epoxy tar , before being re-foamed. You can tell where the steel is too thin, by giving it a good whack with a baby sledge and a centrepunch . If it makes no more of an impression than it would on solid plate, there is plenty of steel there. Cutting a few holes low down to let the sand out , then blasting , priming, and welding back in the plates is far easier than trying to sandblast and clean the sand out of the hull without the holes. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "nathanpincher" wrote: > > Howdy all, > > We've recently taken on a steel motorsailer project on the south coast of the UK and after a number of postings on Sailnet, someone suggested I make my way over here for introductions. > > The boat was built in 1974 and has sat for the past year with 200 gallons of freshwater in the bilge (love those teak decks). Our first order of operations has been to dry out the interior - no easy feat when the walls are saturated, so we've begun stripping back the sprayed in insulation in the salon and hope to have that area completely bare by end of this weekend. > > We've setup a facebook page to track the build (svbellissima) so I might throw some pictures up here, but given my work schedule they'll more than likely just get updat- foramed.ed on that page. > > I expect we're going to have a TONNE of questions also, predominantly around the steel preparation and rust treatment, so any advice would of course be greatly appreciated. > > cheers, > nathan > | 24435|24397|2010-11-09 18:30:15|brentswain38|Re: Seawater in engine|Terry did fill the seized cylindre with oil. Fluid film disolves rust and leaves lanolin behind, great stuff. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > Back in the day around my fathers place there was a nieghbor with an old CAT bulldozer. It sat out in a field and would often go for a year or more without running. The great thing about diesels is that thier simple nature means they can withstand a lot of neglect. > > This is why I wouldn't give up on this engine. > > David A Frantz > > websterindustro@... > Sent from my iPhone. > > On Nov 8, 2010, at 10:38 PM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > Speaking of farm country, I unseized the same farm tractor engine twice in a decade. I removed the head. Luckily the engine was not seized at TDC. I put a piece of softwood on each piston, and gently tapped them. Once I got it to move, I put oil on the piston head and cranked the engine over by hand, cleaning off the soiled oil and putting new oil on from time to time. After it turned over smoothly, I put the head back on, and started it up. Cause was rainwater entering the exhaust and sitting on the tops of the pistons (an not starting it for a year), rusting them to the sleeves. I imagine salt water would act far more quickly. > > > > First thing is, wash it with fresh (rain) water to get the salt off / out. Then use WD-40 or 99% ethanol to displace / remove the water. Then spray it with oil, any oil will do to start. Then replace the engine oil. That should greatly slow the rusting process. > > > > Matt > > > > CC: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: websterindustro@... > > Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 03:25:01 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Seawater in engine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I grew up infarm country and one farmer was well know for his modest maintenance skills. In other words he siezed more than engine. Often the engine can be repaired without huge expenses. The important thing is to not assume the engine is trashed until you have proven so to yourself. > > > > > > > > Diesels are relatively simple machine, this should be kept in mind. Well outside of the injectors they are. In any event get as much info as possible with respect to how it failed with the water is the first step. If water was sucked in during operation the damage could be extensive. If the water came in while sitting in port over a long period of time there may be mote hope. > > > > > > > > I like your idea with the kerosene. I might even suggest putting the whole engine in a barrel or tube to soak a bit. Admittedly I'm biased to pulling the engine and tearing it down for a good look. Mainly because it is a used motor and I'd rather know from first hand examination that it is worth stuffing back into the ship. Lets face it water damage may not be the whole story here. > > > > > > > > David A Frantz > > > > > > > > websterindustro@... > > > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > > > > > > On Nov 4, 2010, at 9:42 PM, wild_explorer wrote: > > > > > > > >> IF it was seized just because of "sitting" (or water got in when not running), remove injector/s, drain out oil, put oil drain plug back in. > > > >> > > > >> Disconnect intake and exhaust + plug it. Or skip this step, If you are sure, that liquid from cylinder/s will not leak trough them, you can leave it on (without disconnecting). > > > >> > > > >> Fill it up from the TOP of the cylinder/cylinders by kerosene (or mix of kerosene and car automatic transmission oil)- trough removed injector's opening (or opened valve if unable to remove injector/s). Leave it for several days, top it off regularly until all engine filled up. > > > >> > > > >> It might help. After about 2 weeks drain kerosene/mixture out (save it just in case). If after this, you will not be able to turn engine SLOWLY (not by starter) - too bad. It might have more severe damage. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Engines sieze up for a lot of reasons. If the boat is new to you find out how much a complete overhaul will cost and what the exact problem is. Then compare that with buying another engine. > > > >>> > > > >>> Can you do a rebuild yourself? That would save you some money, especially if the damage is minor. Also find out if the engine was running at the time the water was pulled in. If water got into a cylinder while running or cranking the damage could be pretty bad. On the other hand if the engine just sat there and rusted a few parts together if might be a bit easier to fix. > > > >>> > > > >>> Oh one more thing find a service manual for the engine. A manual will give you an idea of the complexity involved in tepairing it. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> David A Frantz > > > >>> > > > >>> websterindustro@ > > > >>> Sent from my iPhone. > > > >>> > > > >>> On Nov 4, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Mark Hamill wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hi: > > > >>>> I Just bought a 1984 36 footer in Campbell River with an engine that > > > >>>> apparently siphoned seawater into the engine--a Yanmar 3GMD. The thing is > > > >>>> seized. Any thoughts on how to proceed?? MarkH > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ------------------------------------ > > > >>>> > > > >>>> To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > >>>> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> ------------------------------------ > > > >> > > > >> To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > >> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > | 24436|24436|2010-11-09 18:36:23|brentswain38|Bypassing the solenoid|On my starter motor I had a bit of trouble with solenoids, so I welded a piece of 1/4 inch ss sch 40 pipe to the plate covering the starter contacts, then drilled it out and die ground it out to take a 3/8th bolt. I put a 3/8eth ss bolt thru this , with an acorn nut on the outside and bolted it back on. Now , if the solenoid is dead, I can force the contacts together by hand. by pushing on the acorn nut with a stick. The guy in the starter rebuild shop said " Man that's a handy innovation. A friend said he saw motors in logging camps which had no solenoid, just a lever on the side of the starter to do the job of the solenoid. I've had to use it many times, when I would have otherwise been stranded.| 24437|24245|2010-11-09 18:48:08|Carl Volkwein|Re: BOOKS|How much do you want for Steal away? carlvolkwein@... --- On Thu, 11/4/10, Carl Anderson wrote: From: Carl Anderson Subject: [origamiboats] BOOKS To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, November 4, 2010, 11:56 AM Hey all, the dvd is gone. BUT we still have these books. Is anyone interested? STEEL AWAY - A guide to the world of steel sailboats THE OCEAN SAILING YACHT - By Donald M. Street FROM A BARE HULL - By Ferenc Mate’ PRECISION CRUISING – By Arthur F. Chace We're wrapping up our life here in Utah to move towards being on MOM - Thanks! Carl sv-mom.com http://hdd.net/sandy-house-auction/ On 11/3/2010 1:56 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 07:20:10PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: >  > These experiences are common with steel boats. That is why many >  > cruisers choose metal for their second cruising boats, after having >  > the shit scared out of them many times and seeing first hand how much >  > punishment a steel boat can take. > > When I was anchored in Mayaguana, Bahamas, one of our standard ways of > entertaining ourselves was to watch the boats coming in, most of which > ran up on the reef - Bruce Van Sant's guide to the area, which many > considered to be the bible for cruising, had the wrong GPS coordinates > for the entrance, so these fools rushed in where angels feared to tread. > "A prudent mariner never relies on a single source of information for > navigation"...) All of them ran around screaming like crazy people when > it happened - and I have no doubt that pretty much all of those boats > got pretty badly damaged. At least one of them, a gold-plater called > "Maranatha", limped back to Georgetown and spent the next 6 months > getting her hull repaired (that was all OK, though; their church bought > them the boat and was footing their bills, 'cause they were on a mission > to bring religion to the heathens. Brand-new 50+-foot boat, that was. > Nice work if you can get it. I guess.) > > On the other hand, a guy in a steel boat - yep, our kind come in the > foolish variety as well :) - ran up on it doing about 5 knots... quietly > got into his dinghy, laid out his anchor, kedged himself off, and then > worked his way into the anchorage. I was impressed as hell. His attitude > spoke volumes about his mindset regarding his trust in the boat, and it > made for quite the contrast with the usual run of boaters. > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > ------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24438|24357|2010-11-09 18:53:17|Don & Karina|Re: used DVD|I bought the DVD and most likely won't end up making one of these boats and for the small amount spent it was still worth it just for the educational value. My 2 cents worth- keep your DVD and show it to others and promote the origami method and Brent & Alex. Don b _____ From: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com [mailto:origamiboats@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alex Christie Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 5:05 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: used DVD I wasn't going to air this here, as I know how this medium promotes flame-wars, but before I had a chance to contact Carl directly, this came out. I thank anyone, including Carl, who promotes the origami concepts and appreciate anyone promoting my DVD. It's just that copying the DVD onto your hard drive, as Carl had told me last summer he did, thereby still actually "having" the DVD in another format to enjoy, then selling the original copy is a bit harsh on me. Perhaps it means nothing to anyone who has no debts and no extra costs (kids) in life, but it smarts for me. It's sort of like scanning Brent's book or plans onto a hard drive, then selling the original, or copying Carl's CD rom and selling the disc. Is it ok to do that? I don't think so. Even doing it once is hurtful to the originator of the book or CD. There's certainly nothing stopping anyone from doing that. I didn't copy-protect my DVDs because it was just more complication, and I trusted everyone on this site to not copy it. I can see how everyone thinks that it's no harm done, all fair game, but it hurts the one who put their life into producing the film to begin with. No one here realizes the fact that in making the DVD, the time and money I spent on it actually meant that I didn't have enough to keep the hull to finish. It wasn't only the cost in equipment, or the cost in having Brent do things that I could have done had I not had to hold a camera, but the loss of earning time over the nearly one year working on the film post-production. We at beans and rice. I had to choose between supporting my family, or finishing the hull. The movie pretty much cost me my boat, ironically. Was it worth it? Well, whenever anyone buys a new copy of my DVD and tells me that they learned something valuable from it, that's wonderful and it makes it feel that it was all worth the sacrifice. I'll build another some day, and complete the second and third DVD sets. If you keep an electronic copy of my DVD, then you still have it. If you sell the original and keep that copy on you hard drive, you've violated copyright. If you want to promote the concept and show the DVD to others, go ahead, but don't make a copy and then flog the original, it's not really cricket. All for the gain of a few bucks for yourself and the loss of a few for me. Please don't let this fan out into a pissing match about copyright law. All that needs be said here is that my feelings are hurt that someone would make a copy then sell the original. Yes, people do it with the big Hollywood movies all the time, but I'm just one person to whom every DVD purchase makes a difference in terms of what I gave up to make it. Case closed. Alex --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com , Carl Anderson wrote: > > All I have done on this forum & with my web site are things to > facilitate and encourage people to build one of Brents's boats thereby > helping him produce some income. I encourage everyone reading my > website to purchase Alex's DVD as well as Brent's book. I have no use > for the DVD that I bought from Alex in 2006 as I have a 98% finished > boat and want to spend my time sailing not building. > > If for some reason Brent thinks that I am fucking him or Alex over then > it is his god damn problem. > > Carl > > Better to keep one's mouth shut & be thought a fool than to open it and > remove all doubt - very old saying > > > On 11/9/2010 7:25 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > That struck me the same way. I assumed that Brent knew something for > > certain that we did not. > > > > Matt > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: audeojude@... > > Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 12:48:44 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: used DVD > > > > Damn > > Brent that's pretty harsh.. all his post says is that he no longer > > needs the one he bought and is selling it, not that he made a copy and > > is selling it. As long as it is the original copy it is his to sell as > > he wants. If someone is making copies and selling them then I'm with > > you, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. > > > > scott > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , "brentswain38" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Pretty sleazy , buying a copyrighted DVD, copying it for your own > > use, then selling it, especially when you are screwing someone who has > > done so much for all of us, like setting up this site. Sounds downright > > "Christian".I think Alex deserves some payment, seeing how he hasn't > > yet covered the cost of making the DVD yet, and how we have all > > benefited so much from his volentary efforts. .. > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , Carl Anderson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone wanting a used DVD about building the Brent 36' I have one > > that I > > > > > > no longer need. > > > > > > > > > > > > Carl > > > > > > sv-mom.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > _____ size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#aca899" align=center> No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3246 - Release Date: 11/09/10 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24439|24357|2010-11-09 20:36:28|Gary H. Lucas|Re: used DVD|I have always felt that a person’s attitude towards electronic copying is a good indicator of their actual honesty. When someone copies software I can be pretty sure that if money is involved they will not do the right thing and will somehow justify screwing you. A couple of years ago I was working at a jobsite and I found a dollar lying near the door. I picked it up and took it in the office and gave it to the guy and said “I think this is yours, you walked through the plant a few minutes ago” He looked at me like I was crazy and asked why I didn’t just put it in my pocket. I had to think about that for a bit. My answer was “Because it wasn’t mine, and it never crossed my mind to do anything else” A few days later I needed to borrow a tool from him to get the job done. He said he had one in his tool box, and he unlocked it. He looked at me for a minute and said “Take what you need and lock it up when you are done, I won’t be back” I wondered if he would have done that a week earlier. Gary H. Lucas From: Alex Christie Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 6:05 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: used DVD I wasn't going to air this here, as I know how this medium promotes flame-wars, but before I had a chance to contact Carl directly, this came out. I thank anyone, including Carl, who promotes the origami concepts and appreciate anyone promoting my DVD. It's just that copying the DVD onto your hard drive, as Carl had told me last summer he did, thereby still actually "having" the DVD in another format to enjoy, then selling the original copy is a bit harsh on me. Perhaps it means nothing to anyone who has no debts and no extra costs (kids) in life, but it smarts for me. It's sort of like scanning Brent's book or plans onto a hard drive, then selling the original, or copying Carl's CD rom and selling the disc. Is it ok to do that? I don't think so. Even doing it once is hurtful to the originator of the book or CD. There's certainly nothing stopping anyone from doing that. I didn't copy-protect my DVDs because it was just more complication, and I trusted everyone on this site to not copy it. I can see how everyone thinks that it's no harm done, all fair game, but it hurts the one who put their life into producing the film to begin with. No one here realizes the fact that in making the DVD, the time and money I spent on it actually meant that I didn't have enough to keep the hull to finish. It wasn't only the cost in equipment, or the cost in having Brent do things that I could have done had I not had to hold a camera, but the loss of earning time over the nearly one year working on the film post-production. We at beans and rice. I had to choose between supporting my family, or finishing the hull. The movie pretty much cost me my boat, ironically. Was it worth it? Well, whenever anyone buys a new copy of my DVD and tells me that they learned something valuable from it, that's wonderful and it makes it feel that it was all worth the sacrifice. I'll build another some day, and complete the second and third DVD sets. If you keep an electronic copy of my DVD, then you still have it. If you sell the original and keep that copy on you hard drive, you've violated copyright. If you want to promote the concept and show the DVD to others, go ahead, but don't make a copy and then flog the original, it's not really cricket. All for the gain of a few bucks for yourself and the loss of a few for me. Please don't let this fan out into a pissing match about copyright law. All that needs be said here is that my feelings are hurt that someone would make a copy then sell the original. Yes, people do it with the big Hollywood movies all the time, but I'm just one person to whom every DVD purchase makes a difference in terms of what I gave up to make it. Case closed. Alex --- In mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com, Carl Anderson wrote: > > All I have done on this forum & with my web site are things to > facilitate and encourage people to build one of Brents's boats thereby > helping him produce some income. I encourage everyone reading my > website to purchase Alex's DVD as well as Brent's book. I have no use > for the DVD that I bought from Alex in 2006 as I have a 98% finished > boat and want to spend my time sailing not building. > > If for some reason Brent thinks that I am fucking him or Alex over then > it is his god damn problem. > > Carl > > Better to keep one's mouth shut & be thought a fool than to open it and > remove all doubt - very old saying > > > On 11/9/2010 7:25 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > That struck me the same way. I assumed that Brent knew something for > > certain that we did not. > > > > Matt > > > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > From: audeojude@... > > Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 12:48:44 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: used DVD > > > > Damn > > Brent that's pretty harsh.. all his post says is that he no longer > > needs the one he bought and is selling it, not that he made a copy and > > is selling it. As long as it is the original copy it is his to sell as > > he wants. If someone is making copies and selling them then I'm with > > you, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. > > > > scott > > > > --- In mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > , "brentswain38" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Pretty sleazy , buying a copyrighted DVD, copying it for your own > > use, then selling it, especially when you are screwing someone who has > > done so much for all of us, like setting up this site. Sounds downright > > "Christian".I think Alex deserves some payment, seeing how he hasn't > > yet covered the cost of making the DVD yet, and how we have all > > benefited so much from his volentary efforts. .. > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > , Carl Anderson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone wanting a used DVD about building the Brent 36' I have one > > that I > > > > > > no longer need. > > > > > > > > > > > > Carl > > > > > > sv-mom.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24440|24357|2010-11-09 23:27:04|Carl Anderson|Re: used DVD|At this point I have to say that I will remove ALL references to Brent & Alex from my web site. From this point forward I am the proud owner of a custom 36' steel boat the was built by Evan Shaler. Why would I continue to support ANYONE that insults me on an open forum such as this???? Its all BULLSHIT. Carl & Kate sv-mom.com On 11/9/2010 4:05 PM, Alex Christie wrote: > I wasn't going to air this here, as I know how this medium promotes > flame-wars, but before I had a chance to contact Carl directly, this > came out. I thank anyone, including Carl, who promotes the origami > concepts and appreciate anyone promoting my DVD. > > It's just that copying the DVD onto your hard drive, as Carl had told me > last summer he did, thereby still actually "having" the DVD in another > format to enjoy, then selling the original copy is a bit harsh on me. > Perhaps it means nothing to anyone who has no debts and no extra costs > (kids) in life, but it smarts for me. It's sort of like scanning Brent's > book or plans onto a hard drive, then selling the original, or copying > Carl's CD rom and selling the disc. Is it ok to do that? I don't think > so. Even doing it once is hurtful to the originator of the book or CD. > There's certainly nothing stopping anyone from doing that. I didn't > copy-protect my DVDs because it was just more complication, and I > trusted everyone on this site to not copy it. > > I can see how everyone thinks that it's no harm done, all fair game, but > it hurts the one who put their life into producing the film to begin > with. No one here realizes the fact that in making the DVD, the time and > money I spent on it actually meant that I didn't have enough to keep the > hull to finish. It wasn't only the cost in equipment, or the cost in > having Brent do things that I could have done had I not had to hold a > camera, but the loss of earning time over the nearly one year working on > the film post-production. We at beans and rice. I had to choose between > supporting my family, or finishing the hull. The movie pretty much cost > me my boat, ironically. Was it worth it? Well, whenever anyone buys a > new copy of my DVD and tells me that they learned something valuable > from it, that's wonderful and it makes it feel that it was all worth the > sacrifice. I'll build another some day, and complete the second and > third DVD sets. > > If you keep an electronic copy of my DVD, then you still have it. If you > sell the original and keep that copy on you hard drive, you've violated > copyright. If you want to promote the concept and show the DVD to > others, go ahead, but don't make a copy and then flog the original, it's > not really cricket. All for the gain of a few bucks for yourself and the > loss of a few for me. > > Please don't let this fan out into a pissing match about copyright law. > All that needs be said here is that my feelings are hurt that someone > would make a copy then sell the original. Yes, people do it with the big > Hollywood movies all the time, but I'm just one person to whom every DVD > purchase makes a difference in terms of what I gave up to make it. Case > closed. > > Alex > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Carl Anderson wrote: > > > > All I have done on this forum & with my web site are things to > > facilitate and encourage people to build one of Brents's boats thereby > > helping him produce some income. I encourage everyone reading my > > website to purchase Alex's DVD as well as Brent's book. I have no use > > for the DVD that I bought from Alex in 2006 as I have a 98% finished > > boat and want to spend my time sailing not building. > > > > If for some reason Brent thinks that I am fucking him or Alex over then > > it is his god damn problem. > > > > Carl > > > > Better to keep one's mouth shut & be thought a fool than to open it and > > remove all doubt - very old saying > > > > > > On 11/9/2010 7:25 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > That struck me the same way. I assumed that Brent knew something for > > > certain that we did not. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > From: audeojude@... > > > Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 12:48:44 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: used DVD > > > > > > Damn > > > Brent that's pretty harsh.. all his post says is that he no longer > > > needs the one he bought and is selling it, not that he made a copy and > > > is selling it. As long as it is the original copy it is his to sell as > > > he wants. If someone is making copies and selling them then I'm with > > > you, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. > > > > > > scott > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > , "brentswain38" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pretty sleazy , buying a copyrighted DVD, copying it for your own > > > use, then selling it, especially when you are screwing someone who has > > > done so much for all of us, like setting up this site. Sounds downright > > > "Christian".I think Alex deserves some payment, seeing how he hasn't > > > yet covered the cost of making the DVD yet, and how we have all > > > benefited so much from his volentary efforts. .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > , Carl Anderson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone wanting a used DVD about building the Brent 36' I have one > > > that I > > > > > > > > no longer need. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carl > > > > > > > > sv-mom.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > | 24441|24405|2010-11-09 23:45:03|James Pronk|Re: 40ft steel motorsailer boat project|  What type or brand of coal epoxy should I be looking for? Is the devatar from Devoe paints any good? Thank you, James   --- On Tue, 11/9/10, brentswain38 wrote: From: brentswain38 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: 40ft steel motorsailer boat project To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Tuesday, November 9, 2010, 6:27 PM   A friend, with a lot of cruising experience bought a steel boat with a teak overlay deck. The first nite he owned it , he took a crowbar to the teak, and by morning, the shore was lined with teak( makes good firewood. ) He then had all the holes welded shut, and a pipe welded to the bulwark cap, to replace the teak one. . You can hear where foam has separated from the steel, by dragging your fingernails over it and listening for the hollow sound. If there is no paint behind the foam, and it is rusting , it should all be pulled out, and the hull sandblasted and given at least three coats of epoxy tar , before being re-foamed. You can tell where the steel is too thin, by giving it a good whack with a baby sledge and a centrepunch . If it makes no more of an impression than it would on solid plate, there is plenty of steel there. Cutting a few holes low down to let the sand out , then blasting , priming, and welding back in the plates is far easier than trying to sandblast and clean the sand out of the hull without the holes. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24442|24357|2010-11-10 00:21:05|Matt Malone|Re: used DVD|Not cool Carl. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: achristie@... Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 23:05:24 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: used DVD I wasn't going to air this here, as I know how this medium promotes flame-wars, but before I had a chance to contact Carl directly, this came out. I thank anyone, including Carl, who promotes the origami concepts and appreciate anyone promoting my DVD. It's just that copying the DVD onto your hard drive, as Carl had told me last summer he did, thereby still actually "having" the DVD in another format to enjoy, then selling the original copy is a bit harsh on me. Perhaps it means nothing to anyone who has no debts and no extra costs (kids) in life, but it smarts for me. It's sort of like scanning Brent's book or plans onto a hard drive, then selling the original, or copying Carl's CD rom and selling the disc. Is it ok to do that? I don't think so. Even doing it once is hurtful to the originator of the book or CD. There's certainly nothing stopping anyone from doing that. I didn't copy-protect my DVDs because it was just more complication, and I trusted everyone on this site to not copy it. I can see how everyone thinks that it's no harm done, all fair game, but it hurts the one who put their life into producing the film to begin with. No one here realizes the fact that in making the DVD, the time and money I spent on it actually meant that I didn't have enough to keep the hull to finish. It wasn't only the cost in equipment, or the cost in having Brent do things that I could have done had I not had to hold a camera, but the loss of earning time over the nearly one year working on the film post-production. We at beans and rice. I had to choose between supporting my family, or finishing the hull. The movie pretty much cost me my boat, ironically. Was it worth it? Well, whenever anyone buys a new copy of my DVD and tells me that they learned something valuable from it, that's wonderful and it makes it feel that it was all worth the sacrifice. I'll build another some day, and complete the second and third DVD sets. If you keep an electronic copy of my DVD, then you still have it. If you sell the original and keep that copy on you hard drive, you've violated copyright. If you want to promote the concept and show the DVD to others, go ahead, but don't make a copy and then flog the original, it's not really cricket. All for the gain of a few bucks for yourself and the loss of a few for me. Please don't let this fan out into a pissing match about copyright law. All that needs be said here is that my feelings are hurt that someone would make a copy then sell the original. Yes, people do it with the big Hollywood movies all the time, but I'm just one person to whom every DVD purchase makes a difference in terms of what I gave up to make it. Case closed. Alex --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Carl Anderson wrote: > > All I have done on this forum & with my web site are things to > facilitate and encourage people to build one of Brents's boats thereby > helping him produce some income. I encourage everyone reading my > website to purchase Alex's DVD as well as Brent's book. I have no use > for the DVD that I bought from Alex in 2006 as I have a 98% finished > boat and want to spend my time sailing not building. > > If for some reason Brent thinks that I am fucking him or Alex over then > it is his god damn problem. > > Carl > > Better to keep one's mouth shut & be thought a fool than to open it and > remove all doubt - very old saying > > > On 11/9/2010 7:25 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > That struck me the same way. I assumed that Brent knew something for > > certain that we did not. > > > > Matt > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: audeojude@... > > Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 12:48:44 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: used DVD > > > > Damn > > Brent that's pretty harsh.. all his post says is that he no longer > > needs the one he bought and is selling it, not that he made a copy and > > is selling it. As long as it is the original copy it is his to sell as > > he wants. If someone is making copies and selling them then I'm with > > you, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. > > > > scott > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , "brentswain38" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Pretty sleazy , buying a copyrighted DVD, copying it for your own > > use, then selling it, especially when you are screwing someone who has > > done so much for all of us, like setting up this site. Sounds downright > > "Christian".I think Alex deserves some payment, seeing how he hasn't > > yet covered the cost of making the DVD yet, and how we have all > > benefited so much from his volentary efforts. .. > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , Carl Anderson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone wanting a used DVD about building the Brent 36' I have one > > that I > > > > > > no longer need. > > > > > > > > > > > > Carl > > > > > > sv-mom.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24443|24357|2010-11-10 00:28:12|Matt Malone|Re: used DVD|More not cool... all started over $20. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: cwa@... > Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 21:27:03 -0700 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: used DVD > > At this point I have to say that I will remove ALL references to Brent & > Alex from my web site. > > From this point forward I am the proud owner of a custom 36' steel boat > the was built by Evan Shaler. > > Why would I continue to support ANYONE that insults me on an open forum > such as this???? > > Its all BULLSHIT. > > Carl & Kate > sv-mom.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24444|24357|2010-11-10 00:34:27|Ben Okopnik|Re: used DVD|On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 09:27:03PM -0700, Carl Anderson wrote: > At this point I have to say that I will remove ALL references to Brent & > Alex from my web site. > > From this point forward I am the proud owner of a custom 36' steel boat > the was built by Evan Shaler. > > Why would I continue to support ANYONE that insults me on an open forum > such as this???? > > Its all BULLSHIT. That last sentence, Carl, is something we can all agree on. Up until this last email of yours, I was reserving judgement - but you just stepped on your own genitals, in public. *Bad* move. First off, if you hadn't done anything wrong, then all you had to do was to calmly explain what actually happened, and that would have been the end of it - both Alex and Brent are very reasonable people, in my experience. Second, if you really did screw up and stole something by mistake - e.g., sold a DVD of which you kept a copy - then you were wrong, and owe an apology and perhaps some compensation to Alex. At the very least, you could have offered to erase your copy, which would have taken care of the copyright violation. The way that you chose to act instead, however, spotlights you as being a flaming jerk. This flouncing-off act fools no one, and the theatrical spoiled-child tantrum does not cover up your theft or your refusal to make it right. What you've demonstrated here is an utter absence of honor and honesty, and you've shown yourself unworthy and unfit for any decent person to associate with. It's neither my money nor my reputation to kiss off - but in Alex's or Brent's place, I'd be quite happy to lose someone like you as a "supporter", and consider it cheap at twice the price. "With friends like these", as the saying goes, "who needs enemies?" Go in shame. You've lost the regard of a number of good men today. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24445|24357|2010-11-10 04:51:06|Alex Christie|case close|Carl has told me that he has erased the copy from his laptop, so it's case closed. I'm not sure why reactions all around were so violent, but I'd like to get back to the subject at hand, the building of origami boats. Thanks, Alex| 24446|24357|2010-11-10 09:59:46|Maxime Camirand|Re: used DVD|Carl makes a personal copy of the DVD before selling the original, which is certainly a copyright violation, but probably wasn't a thought-out attempt to destroy someone's livelihood. If addressed privately, I bet he would have understood and relented. Brent aggressively comments on this in an open forum. His indignity is justified, but why the heck would you flame someone in public over this? A personal email would have been much better. By making a public attack, he's ensuring that Carl will be on the defensive and this will all turn ugly. Alex chimes in with a civil explanation. Ben Okopnik (typically) takes this opportunity to act like a 14-year-old on Usenet, needlessly stomping on Carl's head in a puerile flame-post and proving that, contrary to prior impressions, this affair /can/ get uglier. Everyone is disgusted at the series of events, and the forum (otherwise a good source of info) is soiled. Great.| 24447|24357|2010-11-10 12:20:55|wild_explorer|Re: used DVD, book, pictures CD|I have Brent's book, Alex's DVD, Carl's pictures CD. These are great products which, in my opinion, every person considering building "origami" boat should have to see what is involved and what ideas are used. It is very sad, that "behind the scene politic" causing people, who contributed so much in promoting "origami boat", to fight over nothing in public forum. P.S. Reading old messages, I have noticed that such kind of flamed talk happens sometimes, but usually it is just MISUNDERSTANDING between all sides involved.| 24448|24357|2010-11-10 13:06:14|h|Re: used DVD|For your information, a lot of people don't seem to know this but you can send any form of media within the states really really cheap as media mail, books, CDs photos, ect. Unfortunately canada has long gotten rid of their book rate, even for libraries and you can't send book rate across borders. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Maxime Camirand wrote: > > Carl makes a personal copy of the DVD before selling the original, > which is certainly a copyright violation, but probably wasn't a > thought-out attempt to destroy someone's livelihood. If addressed > privately, I bet he would have understood and relented. > > Brent aggressively comments on this in an open forum. His indignity is > justified, but why the heck would you flame someone in public over > this? A personal email would have been much better. By making a public > attack, he's ensuring that Carl will be on the defensive and this will > all turn ugly. > > Alex chimes in with a civil explanation. > > Ben Okopnik (typically) takes this opportunity to act like a > 14-year-old on Usenet, needlessly stomping on Carl's head in a puerile > flame-post and proving that, contrary to prior impressions, this > affair /can/ get uglier. > > Everyone is disgusted at the series of events, and the forum > (otherwise a good source of info) is soiled. > > Great. > | 24449|24449|2010-11-10 13:07:19|Mark Hamill|Pilothouse|Brent: Do you have plans for the pilothouse?? I wanted to putt one on Psyche that I just purchased in CRiver. I do not have much experience welding and was wondering about making one out of solid fiberglass and/or epoxy coated plywood and then bolting it in place?? I am familiar with those materials. I could also cut out all the steel or aluminum sheet and have it welded and then install but I was wondering if it might warp unless it was held in a form of some kind. All thoughts appreciated. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24450|24449|2010-11-10 16:47:18|brentswain38|Re: Pilothouse|Mark Yes I have plans for a pilot house and would be happy to help you get one together for Phsyche. Metal would be best, as pilothouses have been considered a weak spot in other materials . We could build it ashore, detail it, then put it on in a day. It could be done in aluminium. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > Brent: > Do you have plans for the pilothouse?? > I wanted to putt one on Psyche that I just purchased in CRiver. I do not have much experience welding and was wondering about making one out of solid fiberglass and/or epoxy coated plywood and then bolting it in place?? I am familiar with those materials. > I could also cut out all the steel or aluminum sheet and have it welded and then install but I was wondering if it might warp unless it was held in a form of some kind. > All thoughts appreciated. MarkH > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24451|24405|2010-11-10 16:51:58|brentswain38|Re: 40ft steel motorsailer boat project|Coal tar epoxy is all the same , basically . The four to one mix has a longer shelf life than the one to one , but the one to one is easier to mix in small batches. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > >   > What type or brand of coal epoxy should I be looking for? > Is the devatar from Devoe paints any good? > Thank you, > James >   > > --- On Tue, 11/9/10, brentswain38 wrote: > > > From: brentswain38 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: 40ft steel motorsailer boat project > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Tuesday, November 9, 2010, 6:27 PM > > >   > > > > A friend, with a lot of cruising experience bought a steel boat with a teak overlay deck. The first nite he owned it , he took a crowbar to the teak, and by morning, the shore was lined with teak( makes good firewood. ) He then had all the holes welded shut, and a pipe welded to the bulwark cap, to replace the teak one. > . You can hear where foam has separated from the steel, by dragging your fingernails over it and listening for the hollow sound. If there is no paint behind the foam, and it is rusting , it should all be pulled out, and the hull sandblasted and given at least three coats of epoxy tar , before being re-foamed. > You can tell where the steel is too thin, by giving it a good whack with a baby sledge and a centrepunch . If it makes no more of an impression than it would on solid plate, there is plenty of steel there. > Cutting a few holes low down to let the sand out , then blasting , priming, and welding back in the plates is far easier than trying to sandblast and clean the sand out of the hull without the holes. > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24452|24357|2010-11-10 16:57:21|brentswain38|Re: used DVD|I believe it was just an oversight on Carl's part, made with no bad intent. I have always got instantly hot under the collar when I see someone who I feel is being mistreated. That is why I have been motivated to try deal with the biggest obstacle to people getting out cruising, time and money. Apologies. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Maxime Camirand wrote: > > Carl makes a personal copy of the DVD before selling the original, > which is certainly a copyright violation, but probably wasn't a > thought-out attempt to destroy someone's livelihood. If addressed > privately, I bet he would have understood and relented. > > Brent aggressively comments on this in an open forum. His indignity is > justified, but why the heck would you flame someone in public over > this? A personal email would have been much better. By making a public > attack, he's ensuring that Carl will be on the defensive and this will > all turn ugly. > > Alex chimes in with a civil explanation. > > Ben Okopnik (typically) takes this opportunity to act like a > 14-year-old on Usenet, needlessly stomping on Carl's head in a puerile > flame-post and proving that, contrary to prior impressions, this > affair /can/ get uglier. > > Everyone is disgusted at the series of events, and the forum > (otherwise a good source of info) is soiled. > > Great. > | 24453|24357|2010-11-10 16:58:41|brentswain38|Re: used DVD|Too bad . I could use cheaper postal rates, as could those who buy my books. It keeps increasing. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > For your information, a lot of people don't seem to know this but you can send any form of media within the states really really cheap as media mail, books, CDs photos, ect. > Unfortunately canada has long gotten rid of their book rate, even for libraries and you can't send book rate across borders. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Maxime Camirand wrote: > > > > Carl makes a personal copy of the DVD before selling the original, > > which is certainly a copyright violation, but probably wasn't a > > thought-out attempt to destroy someone's livelihood. If addressed > > privately, I bet he would have understood and relented. > > > > Brent aggressively comments on this in an open forum. His indignity is > > justified, but why the heck would you flame someone in public over > > this? A personal email would have been much better. By making a public > > attack, he's ensuring that Carl will be on the defensive and this will > > all turn ugly. > > > > Alex chimes in with a civil explanation. > > > > Ben Okopnik (typically) takes this opportunity to act like a > > 14-year-old on Usenet, needlessly stomping on Carl's head in a puerile > > flame-post and proving that, contrary to prior impressions, this > > affair /can/ get uglier. > > > > Everyone is disgusted at the series of events, and the forum > > (otherwise a good source of info) is soiled. > > > > Great. > > > | 24454|24449|2010-11-10 19:18:53|Mark Hamill|Re: Pilothouse|Brent: Thanks very much for the offer of assistance, that would be fantastic--I'll buy a copy of the plans. MarkH mhamill1@... 338-8457 ----- Original Message ----- From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:47 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Pilothouse Mark Yes I have plans for a pilot house and would be happy to help you get one together for Phsyche. Metal would be best, as pilothouses have been considered a weak spot in other materials . We could build it ashore, detail it, then put it on in a day. It could be done in aluminium. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > Brent: > Do you have plans for the pilothouse?? > I wanted to putt one on Psyche that I just purchased in CRiver. I do not have much experience welding and was wondering about making one out of solid fiberglass and/or epoxy coated plywood and then bolting it in place?? I am familiar with those materials. > I could also cut out all the steel or aluminum sheet and have it welded and then install but I was wondering if it might warp unless it was held in a form of some kind. > All thoughts appreciated. MarkH > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24455|24449|2010-11-11 10:51:31|h|Re: Pilothouse|I'll be in town in a few days, I've got my welder on the boat if you'd like to borrow it, it's just a big clunky AC buzzbox. Last summer I rigged up a split pigtail to plug it into the government dock in CR, down on the docks at the north side of the office I imagine the power situation (lack of 220volt) is the same on that side. Or have you brought the boat down to comox? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > Brent: Thanks very much for the offer of assistance, that would be fantastic--I'll buy a copy of the plans. MarkH > mhamill1@... 338-8457 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: brentswain38 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:47 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Pilothouse > > > > Mark > Yes I have plans for a pilot house and would be happy to help you get one together for Phsyche. > Metal would be best, as pilothouses have been considered a weak spot in other materials . We could build it ashore, detail it, then put it on in a day. It could be done in aluminium. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > Brent: > > Do you have plans for the pilothouse?? > > I wanted to putt one on Psyche that I just purchased in CRiver. I do not have much experience welding and was wondering about making one out of solid fiberglass and/or epoxy coated plywood and then bolting it in place?? I am familiar with those materials. > > I could also cut out all the steel or aluminum sheet and have it welded and then install but I was wondering if it might warp unless it was held in a form of some kind. > > All thoughts appreciated. MarkH > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24456|24449|2010-11-11 12:51:55|Mark Hamill|Re: Pilothouse|Hi h: The boat will be there for a bit as the moorage was prepaid. Thanks for the offer of the welder. I have some organizational and "monetary" things to overcome before I can proceed. Holy Mackerel, the head gasket is $167 locally and $67 on line!! for a 3GMF Yanmar!! Well, have the shop manual and will remove the head first to see the state of things before ordering anything....but $167!!! ouch All the best, Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: h To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 7:51 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Pilothouse I'll be in town in a few days, I've got my welder on the boat if you'd like to borrow it, it's just a big clunky AC buzzbox. Last summer I rigged up a split pigtail to plug it into the government dock in CR, down on the docks at the north side of the office I imagine the power situation (lack of 220volt) is the same on that side. Or have you brought the boat down to comox? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > Brent: Thanks very much for the offer of assistance, that would be fantastic--I'll buy a copy of the plans. MarkH > mhamill1@... 338-8457 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: brentswain38 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:47 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Pilothouse > > > > Mark > Yes I have plans for a pilot house and would be happy to help you get one together for Phsyche. > Metal would be best, as pilothouses have been considered a weak spot in other materials . We could build it ashore, detail it, then put it on in a day. It could be done in aluminium. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > Brent: > > Do you have plans for the pilothouse?? > > I wanted to putt one on Psyche that I just purchased in CRiver. I do not have much experience welding and was wondering about making one out of solid fiberglass and/or epoxy coated plywood and then bolting it in place?? I am familiar with those materials. > > I could also cut out all the steel or aluminum sheet and have it welded and then install but I was wondering if it might warp unless it was held in a form of some kind. > > All thoughts appreciated. MarkH > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24457|24457|2010-11-11 22:18:52|Doug - SubmarineBoat.com|Shaft Seals|So why are lip seals or split seals not used as shaft seals instead of stuffing boxes or PSS seals? Doug| 24458|24457|2010-11-11 22:36:20|Ben Okopnik|Re: Shaft Seals|On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 03:18:40AM -0000, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > So why are lip seals or split seals not used as shaft seals instead of stuffing boxes or PSS seals? Good question. I'm not a mechanical engineer, but in comparing the designs, it seems to me that the latter are much sturdier - more likely to resist being banged about, torquing, being side-loaded, etc. The former are more about operating in a controlled environment where things like that aren't likely to happen. A little sand being sucked into a stuffing box, etc., is all in a day's work - i.e., backing off a sand bar - but it would be the end of a lip/split seal. Just one man's opinion, of course. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24459|24457|2010-11-11 22:42:47|Paul Wilson|Re: Shaft Seals|Lip seals are common in New Zealand but quite expensive for what they are....one type is here: http://www.kiwiseal.com/ The site seems to be down right now but you can go to http://www.henleyspropellers.com/products.htm for more info and a picture. I don't think you gain much over a regular stuffing box. You need a bearing to keep the lip seal aligned to the shaft or it will wear fast if it is a flexibly mounted. The PSS is very good but expensive. Rather than a regular lip seal or PSS, I just put a Volvo Rubber Packing on my boat which is an all in one molding complete with shaft bearing and lip seals. They are know to last about 8-10 years, reasonably priced, and virtually drip-less if lubed once a year. It was actually recommended to me by one of the designers of a lip-type seal in NZ. http://www.volvopenta.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Penta/Parts%20brochures/Rubber%20Stuffing%20Box%20(Eng).pdf It is not a recommendation, but they are common on Beneteau chart boats so I assume they are low maintenance and cheap :). You could have a spare for the price of a PSS. Cheers, Paul On 11/12/2010 4:18 PM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > So why are lip seals or split seals not used as shaft seals instead of > stuffing boxes or PSS seals? > > Doug > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3250 - Release Date: 11/11/10 20:34:00 > | 24460|24457|2010-11-12 00:43:54|Gord Schnell|Re: Shaft Seals|Doug Lip seals will often "adhere" to the shaft surface when left for a period of time. Sometimes the seal adheres well enough to "tear" a piece of the lip out of the seal when the shaft is rotated. Gord On 11-Nov-10, at 7:18 PM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > So why are lip seals or split seals not used as shaft seals instead > of stuffing boxes or PSS seals? > > Doug > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24461|24457|2010-11-12 10:25:52|Dave Ladd|Re: Shaft Seals|I've never serviced a stuffing box but can't you service it without disconnecting the shaft? A lip seal would require disassembly... On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Gord Schnell wrote: > Doug > Lip seals will often "adhere" to the shaft surface when left for a > period of time. Sometimes the seal adheres well enough to "tear" a > piece of the lip out of the seal when the shaft is rotated. > Gord > > On 11-Nov-10, at 7:18 PM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > So why are lip seals or split seals not used as shaft seals instead > > of stuffing boxes or PSS seals? > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24462|24457|2010-11-12 11:10:24|GP|Re: Shaft Seals|The Volvo rubber packing sounds very interesting. I have had nothing but problems with my stuffing box even though I have replaced the flax material. My shaft is indented slightly in spots where the suffing material was and I think overheating (to tight on the locking nut) may have resulted in shaft damage. So the Volvo rubber packing might work for me. I am getting way too much water in the bilge when cruising under power and when anchored I have to tighten down the stuffing box to keep the bilge pump from turning on. ...I will check out that link thanks Gary --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Lip seals are common in New Zealand but quite expensive for what they > are....one type is here: > > http://www.kiwiseal.com/ > > The site seems to be down right now but you can go to > http://www.henleyspropellers.com/products.htm for more info and a picture. > > I don't think you gain much over a regular stuffing box. You need a > bearing to keep the lip seal aligned to the shaft or it will wear fast > if it is a flexibly mounted. The PSS is very good but expensive. > > Rather than a regular lip seal or PSS, I just put a Volvo Rubber Packing > on my boat which is an all in one molding complete with shaft bearing > and lip seals. They are know to last about 8-10 years, reasonably > priced, and virtually drip-less if lubed once a year. It was actually > recommended to me by one of the designers of a lip-type seal in NZ. > > http://www.volvopenta.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Penta/Parts%20brochures/Rubber%20Stuffing%20Box%20(Eng).pdf > > It is not a recommendation, but they are common on Beneteau chart boats > so I assume they are low maintenance and cheap :). You could have a > spare for the price of a PSS. > > Cheers, Paul > > On 11/12/2010 4:18 PM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > So why are lip seals or split seals not used as shaft seals instead of > > stuffing boxes or PSS seals? > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3250 - Release Date: 11/11/10 20:34:00 > > > | 24463|24457|2010-11-12 11:31:47|Doug Jackson|Re: Shaft Seals|Maybe a shaft repair sleeve? No idea if this would help but I came across it while looking a seals. Parker Seal offers these too. http://www.mcmaster.com/#shaft-repair-sleeves/=9ork3p And thanks for the input. I like the volvo idea and price too. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: GP To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, November 12, 2010 10:10:22 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Shaft Seals The Volvo rubber packing sounds very interesting. I have had nothing but problems with my stuffing box even though I have replaced the flax material. My shaft is indented slightly in spots where the suffing material was and I think overheating (to tight on the locking nut) may have resulted in shaft damage. So the Volvo rubber packing might work for me. I am getting way too much water in the bilge when cruising under power and when anchored I have to tighten down the stuffing box to keep the bilge pump from turning on. ...I will check out that link thanks Gary --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Lip seals are common in New Zealand but quite expensive for what they > are....one type is here: > > http://www.kiwiseal.com/ > > The site seems to be down right now but you can go to > http://www.henleyspropellers.com/products.htm for more info and a picture. > > I don't think you gain much over a regular stuffing box. You need a > bearing to keep the lip seal aligned to the shaft or it will wear fast > if it is a flexibly mounted. The PSS is very good but expensive. > > Rather than a regular lip seal or PSS, I just put a Volvo Rubber Packing > on my boat which is an all in one molding complete with shaft bearing > and lip seals. They are know to last about 8-10 years, reasonably > priced, and virtually drip-less if lubed once a year. It was actually > recommended to me by one of the designers of a lip-type seal in NZ. > >http://www.volvopenta.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Penta/Parts%20brochures/Rubber%20Stuffing%20Box%20(Eng).pdf >f > > It is not a recommendation, but they are common on Beneteau chart boats > so I assume they are low maintenance and cheap :). You could have a > spare for the price of a PSS. > > Cheers, Paul > > On 11/12/2010 4:18 PM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > So why are lip seals or split seals not used as shaft seals instead of > > stuffing boxes or PSS seals? > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3250 - Release Date: 11/11/10 >20:34:00 > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24464|24457|2010-11-12 11:32:36|BrdbMc@aol.com|Re: Shaft Seals|All the stuffing boxes I have worked on were sealed with cut packing .This includes steam valves ,propshaft seals etc. On the deep sea ships one of the first job when arriving in port was to tighten the propshaft packing ring to stop water entering .On leaving port this process was reversed and sea water was allowed to flow through the gland. When repacking a stuffing box the practice used to be remove 3 old packing coils ,replace with 2 and at a later date add a third one. When repacking the stern gland the turns of packing were cut ready to fit some shafts being 15 to 18 inch dia. It was a 2 man job and you always got wet . The trick is to use the right packing and never over tighten . The stern gland had about 10 studs of which 2 were longer so that the retaining ring could be pulled out far enough to fed the packing in but could be quickly pushed in as it stayed aligned. The boat I live on as the same sort of stern gland although I believe lipped sealed glands are available but require the prop to be removed. Mikeafloat -----Original Message----- From: Dave Ladd To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:25 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Shaft Seals I've never serviced a stuffing box but can't you service it without isconnecting the shaft? A lip seal would require disassembly... On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Gord Schnell wrote: > Doug Lip seals will often "adhere" to the shaft surface when left for a period of time. Sometimes the seal adheres well enough to "tear" a piece of the lip out of the seal when the shaft is rotated. Gord On 11-Nov-10, at 7:18 PM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > So why are lip seals or split seals not used as shaft seals instead > of stuffing boxes or PSS seals? > > Doug > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com o Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! roups Links Individual Email | Traditional http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24465|24457|2010-11-12 11:39:54|Doug Jackson|Re: Shaft Seals|I think your right as long as the compression ring does not need to be replaced. The do make "split seals" which don't require parting the shaft, but spit seals that can work under psi load are likely going to be expensive. I'm waiting for pricing. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Dave Ladd To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, November 12, 2010 9:25:43 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Shaft Seals I've never serviced a stuffing box but can't you service it without disconnecting the shaft? A lip seal would require disassembly... On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Gord Schnell wrote: > Doug > Lip seals will often "adhere" to the shaft surface when left for a > period of time. Sometimes the seal adheres well enough to "tear" a > piece of the lip out of the seal when the shaft is rotated. > Gord > > On 11-Nov-10, at 7:18 PM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > So why are lip seals or split seals not used as shaft seals instead > > of stuffing boxes or PSS seals? > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24466|24457|2010-11-12 11:57:29|Ben Okopnik|Re: Shaft Seals|On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 08:31:45AM -0800, GP wrote: > > The Volvo rubber packing sounds very interesting. I have had nothing but > problems with my stuffing box even though I have replaced the flax material. My > shaft is indented slightly in spots where the suffing material was and I think > overheating (to tight on the locking nut) may have resulted in shaft damage. That's one of the nice bits about using the PSS or other similar systems: it doesn't rely on making a seal to a rotating shaft. Even if there's damage on the shaft, you could use some sort of a sealant - e.g., 5200 - between it and the "doughnut" that gets clamped onto it. I had a PSS on my previous boat - it came installed when I bought the boat - and had zero trouble (and zero maintenance) in the 8 years or so that I owned her. When I bought "Ulysses", the system that came with it was a grease-packed sleeve that I've described here before (it used a screw-driven grease pump to keep it full.) The sleeve rusted out after a while, so I used a piece of stainless pipe and a PSS to replace it. It's been about 8 or 9 years since then; again, zero trouble and zero maintenance. Oh, and zero saltwater coming in, too - no "drip rate" to worry about. Looking around on the Web, Defender has the PSS for $340.99. Anyone who's spent enough hours hanging head-down in the bilge and cursing while digging out stuffing (and hearing the salt water coming in all the while) would be more than glad to pay that amount to _never_ have to do that again. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24467|24457|2010-11-12 12:24:42|Doug Jackson|Re: Shaft Seals|I read that a PSS can leak if you have a thrust bearing that lets the shaft slip a bit when shifting directions. Is that not your experience or does the dive shaft not move on your installation? Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Ben Okopnik To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, November 12, 2010 10:57:23 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Shaft Seals On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 08:31:45AM -0800, GP wrote: > > The Volvo rubber packing sounds very interesting. I have had nothing but > problems with my stuffing box even though I have replaced the flax material. >My > > shaft is indented slightly in spots where the suffing material was and I think > overheating (to tight on the locking nut) may have resulted in shaft damage. That's one of the nice bits about using the PSS or other similar systems: it doesn't rely on making a seal to a rotating shaft. Even if there's damage on the shaft, you could use some sort of a sealant - e.g., 5200 - between it and the "doughnut" that gets clamped onto it. I had a PSS on my previous boat - it came installed when I bought the boat - and had zero trouble (and zero maintenance) in the 8 years or so that I owned her. When I bought "Ulysses", the system that came with it was a grease-packed sleeve that I've described here before (it used a screw-driven grease pump to keep it full.) The sleeve rusted out after a while, so I used a piece of stainless pipe and a PSS to replace it. It's been about 8 or 9 years since then; again, zero trouble and zero maintenance. Oh, and zero saltwater coming in, too - no "drip rate" to worry about. Looking around on the Web, Defender has the PSS for $340.99. Anyone who's spent enough hours hanging head-down in the bilge and cursing while digging out stuffing (and hearing the salt water coming in all the while) would be more than glad to pay that amount to _never_ have to do that again. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24468|24457|2010-11-12 12:26:40|Denis Buggy|Re: Shaft Seals|RE LIP SEALS --- GORD knows his stuff as when you drain an engine of water and let it stand for a period you frequently lose the waterpump as the steel corrodes where it is shiny --where the seal polishes it as it turns -- when you fill up again with water and spin the shaft is now pitted and rapidly wears the old seal and you see water gushing out of the hole in the waterpump put there to tell you it is now history . lip seals do a great job if they are allowed to do their job --- you must coat the shaft with grease to provide lubrication when new as they rely on the water or oil to lubricate when running as it must leak towards the seal then be met by a reverse spiral thread which throws back the oil or water from the seal and builds up a repel pressure boundary layer at the seal surface this action combined with the natural viscosity of the liquid is what seals -- the seal it self puts the liquid to work to act as a seal -- there are many types of seals and you have to speak to somebody who knows what does what with what liquid , and if your shaft is un balanced and un true to the engine mountings this will not help -- proper marine stuffing boxes are a good design and are very forgiving with a grease nipple fitted and waterproof grease used . machines used in Ireland to harvest sugar beet have a very tough life with wet clay and stones grinding the turning surfaces all day --- they survive by being regularly pumped with a beet harvester grease which is like tar and does not wash away . regards Denis Buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gord Schnell" To: Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 5:43 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Shaft Seals > Doug > Lip seals will often "adhere" to the shaft surface when left for a > period of time. Sometimes the seal adheres well enough to "tear" a > piece of the lip out of the seal when the shaft is rotated. > Gord > > On 11-Nov-10, at 7:18 PM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > >> So why are lip seals or split seals not used as shaft seals instead >> of stuffing boxes or PSS seals? >> >> Doug >> >> >> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > | 24469|24457|2010-11-12 12:47:45|Ben Okopnik|Re: Shaft Seals|On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:24:41AM -0800, Doug Jackson wrote: > I read that a PSS can leak if you have a thrust bearing that lets the shaft slip > a bit when shifting directions. Is that not your experience or does the dive > shaft not move on your installation? Actually, I don't know if the shaft moves or not - haven't had to think about it. :) The whole setup just works, and I don't do much with it except give it a glance every time I check out the engine. Given the way that the PSS is installed, a shaft that slips would only compress it more - and since the sealing pressure in the PSS is provided by a piece of corrugated hose that could be probably be compressed by an inch, I can't imagine a situation where a little movement could make it leak. Additional benefit of the PSS I just thought of: if your shaft coupling ever lets go, the shaft can't slide out of the boat and sink you. Kind nice to know. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24470|24457|2010-11-12 16:20:08|brentswain38|Re: Shaft Seals|As long as there is enough distance between your stuffing box and the coupling to get the nut off your stuffing box and change the packing, there is no problem servicing it with the shaft in place. Stuffing boxes may drip a bit sometimes, but the odds of a sudden flood with them are infinitely smaller than with any of the alternatives. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ladd wrote: > > I've never serviced a stuffing box but can't you service it without > disconnecting the shaft? A lip seal would require disassembly... > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Gord Schnell wrote: > > > Doug > > Lip seals will often "adhere" to the shaft surface when left for a > > period of time. Sometimes the seal adheres well enough to "tear" a > > piece of the lip out of the seal when the shaft is rotated. > > Gord > > > > On 11-Nov-10, at 7:18 PM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > > So why are lip seals or split seals not used as shaft seals instead > > > of stuffing boxes or PSS seals? > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24471|24457|2010-11-12 16:24:19|brentswain38|Re: Shaft Seals|Lengthening or shortening the rubber hose on your stuffing box lets the packing bear on a different part of the shaft. If your mounts are not to soft and floppy, you can drill and tap a 1/8th inch pipe thread in your stern tube , hook up a grease gun to it and pump the stern tube full of grease. Over tightening the stuffing box initially will score your shaft, and then it will never seal, until you shift it to an unscored part of the shaft. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > The Volvo rubber packing sounds very interesting. I have had nothing but problems with my stuffing box even though I have replaced the flax material. My shaft is indented slightly in spots where the suffing material was and I think overheating (to tight on the locking nut) may have resulted in shaft damage. So the Volvo rubber packing might work for me. I am getting way too much water in the bilge when cruising under power and when anchored I have to tighten down the stuffing box to keep the bilge pump from turning on. > > ...I will check out that link > > thanks > Gary > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > Lip seals are common in New Zealand but quite expensive for what they > > are....one type is here: > > > > http://www.kiwiseal.com/ > > > > The site seems to be down right now but you can go to > > http://www.henleyspropellers.com/products.htm for more info and a picture. > > > > I don't think you gain much over a regular stuffing box. You need a > > bearing to keep the lip seal aligned to the shaft or it will wear fast > > if it is a flexibly mounted. The PSS is very good but expensive. > > > > Rather than a regular lip seal or PSS, I just put a Volvo Rubber Packing > > on my boat which is an all in one molding complete with shaft bearing > > and lip seals. They are know to last about 8-10 years, reasonably > > priced, and virtually drip-less if lubed once a year. It was actually > > recommended to me by one of the designers of a lip-type seal in NZ. > > > > http://www.volvopenta.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Penta/Parts%20brochures/Rubber%20Stuffing%20Box%20(Eng).pdf > > > > It is not a recommendation, but they are common on Beneteau chart boats > > so I assume they are low maintenance and cheap :). You could have a > > spare for the price of a PSS. > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > On 11/12/2010 4:18 PM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > > > So why are lip seals or split seals not used as shaft seals instead of > > > stuffing boxes or PSS seals? > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > Version: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3250 - Release Date: 11/11/10 20:34:00 > > > > > > | 24472|24457|2010-11-12 16:30:16|brentswain38|Re: Shaft Seals|Shaft couplings should always have a bolt run right thru them, so they can't pull out. I've seen several pull out , when they used only grub screws. Soft rubber mounts let an engine dance around and move fore and aft. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:24:41AM -0800, Doug Jackson wrote: > > I read that a PSS can leak if you have a thrust bearing that lets the shaft slip > > a bit when shifting directions. Is that not your experience or does the dive > > shaft not move on your installation? > > Actually, I don't know if the shaft moves or not - haven't had > to think about it. :) The whole setup just works, and I don't do much > with it except give it a glance every time I check out the engine. > > Given the way that the PSS is installed, a shaft that slips would only > compress it more - and since the sealing pressure in the PSS is provided > by a piece of corrugated hose that could be probably be compressed by an > inch, I can't imagine a situation where a little movement could make it > leak. > > Additional benefit of the PSS I just thought of: if your shaft coupling > ever lets go, the shaft can't slide out of the boat and sink you. Kind > nice to know. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24473|24457|2010-11-12 16:53:36|Doug Jackson|Re: Shaft Seals|"hook up a grease gun to it and pump the stern tube full of grease." Do you put a seal behind the cutlass bearing and completely fill the stern tube? Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, November 12, 2010 3:24:09 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Shaft Seals Lengthening or shortening the rubber hose on your stuffing box lets the packing bear on a different part of the shaft. If your mounts are not to soft and floppy, you can drill and tap a 1/8th inch pipe thread in your stern tube , hook up a grease gun to it and pump the stern tube full of grease. Over tightening the stuffing box initially will score your shaft, and then it will never seal, until you shift it to an unscored part of the shaft. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > The Volvo rubber packing sounds very interesting. I have had nothing but >problems with my stuffing box even though I have replaced the flax material. My >shaft is indented slightly in spots where the suffing material was and I think >overheating (to tight on the locking nut) may have resulted in shaft damage. So >the Volvo rubber packing might work for me. I am getting way too much water in >the bilge when cruising under power and when anchored I have to tighten down the >stuffing box to keep the bilge pump from turning on. > > ...I will check out that link > > thanks > Gary > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > Lip seals are common in New Zealand but quite expensive for what they > > are....one type is here: > > > > http://www.kiwiseal.com/ > > > > The site seems to be down right now but you can go to > > http://www.henleyspropellers.com/products.htm for more info and a picture. > > > > I don't think you gain much over a regular stuffing box. You need a > > bearing to keep the lip seal aligned to the shaft or it will wear fast > > if it is a flexibly mounted. The PSS is very good but expensive. > > > > Rather than a regular lip seal or PSS, I just put a Volvo Rubber Packing > > on my boat which is an all in one molding complete with shaft bearing > > and lip seals. They are know to last about 8-10 years, reasonably > > priced, and virtually drip-less if lubed once a year. It was actually > > recommended to me by one of the designers of a lip-type seal in NZ. > > > > >http://www.volvopenta.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Penta/Parts%20brochures/Rubber%20Stuffing%20Box%20(Eng).pdf > > > > > It is not a recommendation, but they are common on Beneteau chart boats > > so I assume they are low maintenance and cheap :). You could have a > > spare for the price of a PSS. > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > On 11/12/2010 4:18 PM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > > > So why are lip seals or split seals not used as shaft seals instead of > > > stuffing boxes or PSS seals? > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > Version: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3250 - Release Date: 11/11/10 >20:34:00 > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24474|24457|2010-11-12 17:02:44|GP|Re: Shaft Seals|Brent.... I did put in the grease nipple and plugged up the stern tube with grease. The grease (marine grease) still came out and made a watery greasy mess of things from the engine to the bilge. Most of the grease has hopefully washed out by now that was in the stern tube. Good idea about shifting the stuffing box a bit off of the scored area. I will try that and the stuffing box again. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Lengthening or shortening the rubber hose on your stuffing box lets the packing bear on a different part of the shaft. If your mounts are not to soft and floppy, you can drill and tap a 1/8th inch pipe thread in your stern tube , hook up a grease gun to it and pump the stern tube full of grease. > Over tightening the stuffing box initially will score your shaft, and then it will never seal, until you shift it to an unscored part of the shaft. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > > > The Volvo rubber packing sounds very interesting. I have had nothing but problems with my stuffing box even though I have replaced the flax material. My shaft is indented slightly in spots where the suffing material was and I think overheating (to tight on the locking nut) may have resulted in shaft damage. So the Volvo rubber packing might work for me. I am getting way too much water in the bilge when cruising under power and when anchored I have to tighten down the stuffing box to keep the bilge pump from turning on. > > > > ...I will check out that link > > > > thanks > > Gary > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > > > Lip seals are common in New Zealand but quite expensive for what they > > > are....one type is here: > > > > > > http://www.kiwiseal.com/ > > > > > > The site seems to be down right now but you can go to > > > http://www.henleyspropellers.com/products.htm for more info and a picture. > > > > > > I don't think you gain much over a regular stuffing box. You need a > > > bearing to keep the lip seal aligned to the shaft or it will wear fast > > > if it is a flexibly mounted. The PSS is very good but expensive. > > > > > > Rather than a regular lip seal or PSS, I just put a Volvo Rubber Packing > > > on my boat which is an all in one molding complete with shaft bearing > > > and lip seals. They are know to last about 8-10 years, reasonably > > > priced, and virtually drip-less if lubed once a year. It was actually > > > recommended to me by one of the designers of a lip-type seal in NZ. > > > > > > http://www.volvopenta.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Penta/Parts%20brochures/Rubber%20Stuffing%20Box%20(Eng).pdf > > > > > > It is not a recommendation, but they are common on Beneteau chart boats > > > so I assume they are low maintenance and cheap :). You could have a > > > spare for the price of a PSS. > > > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > > > On 11/12/2010 4:18 PM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > > > > > So why are lip seals or split seals not used as shaft seals instead of > > > > stuffing boxes or PSS seals? > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > > Version: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3250 - Release Date: 11/11/10 20:34:00 > > > > > > > > > > | 24475|24457|2010-11-12 17:19:30|pynrc@aol.com|Re: Shaft Seals|We used lip seals at each end of our shaft tube and filled the tube with slumping grease (Castrol TCX). Worked well for years and then started leaking. Even when I put new seals in it still leaked, so changed to a PSS seal which works well. Don't really like the idea of the unpainted shaft tube full of water though. Regards, Richard. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24476|24457|2010-11-12 21:46:47|Doug Jackson|Re: Shaft Seals|Richard I actually like this idea, but I think it's necessary to sleeve the drive shaft where the seals make contact. Did you use ball bearings in the tube or cutlass bearings? The advantage I see is not just no worries about the stern tube but it and the drive shaft can be steel. Might even be able to incorporate the thrust bearings into the forward end of the stern tube. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: "pynrc@..." To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, November 12, 2010 4:19:13 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Shaft Seals We used lip seals at each end of our shaft tube and filled the tube with slumping grease (Castrol TCX). Worked well for years and then started leaking. Even when I put new seals in it still leaked, so changed to a PSS seal which works well. Don't really like the idea of the unpainted shaft tube full of water though. Regards, Richard. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24477|24477|2010-11-12 22:37:51|Doug Jackson|Good or lucky skipper?|http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/just_plain_stupid/Danish_Boat_Rides_The_Storm Doug ArgonautJr.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24478|24477|2010-11-13 13:22:03|Matt Malone|Re: Good or lucky skipper?|Humm, got to ask, what was so important about getting back at that moment ? Seems a good skipper would not have bothered to try without a good reason -- an injury on board, worse weather coming or something. Seems they narrowly missed some mainly submerged thing just inside the gap in the wall also. Boat either seemed to have a lot of overshoot, or it was running its motor well over idle. Kept going fast even after well clear of the gap. I'd say rash or an emergency on-board. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: svseeker@... Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 19:37:42 -0800 Subject: [origamiboats] Good or lucky skipper? http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/just_plain_stupid/Danish_Boat_Rides_The_Storm Doug ArgonautJr.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24479|24477|2010-11-13 14:53:23|scott|Re: Good or lucky skipper?|I would say say both lucky and good. If he wasn't good he wouldn't have made it. He was lucky even so. That was a pretty narrow entrance with a lot of competing forces at the narrowest point. Boat handling and crew seemed competent from what I could see. He came in fast which is the safest way in those conditions but if he had been off by just a hair that fiberglass boat would have been munched. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/just_plain_stupid/Danish_Boat_Rides_The_Storm > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24480|24457|2010-11-13 15:08:03|scott|Re: Shaft Seals|http://www.pyiinc.com/?section=browse&action=product-detail&sku=02100114 is this what your talking about? If so it is $260 directly from the manufacture? not sure if this is the same product.. i have to do something in the near future with Valkyr.. we were taking on about 2 gallons an hour last time I took her out. had to wrap silicon rescue tape around the packing gland and shaft to get water to stop coming in at the dock. :( packing gland is totally frozen.. I'm going to try the PB blaster route and see if I can free it this week. however if that doesnt work then hauling the boat just went to the top of the list. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 08:31:45AM -0800, GP wrote: > > > > The Volvo rubber packing sounds very interesting. I have had nothing but > > problems with my stuffing box even though I have replaced the flax material. My > > shaft is indented slightly in spots where the suffing material was and I think > > overheating (to tight on the locking nut) may have resulted in shaft damage. > > That's one of the nice bits about using the PSS or other similar > systems: it doesn't rely on making a seal to a rotating shaft. Even if > there's damage on the shaft, you could use some sort of a sealant - > e.g., 5200 - between it and the "doughnut" that gets clamped onto it. > > I had a PSS on my previous boat - it came installed when I bought the > boat - and had zero trouble (and zero maintenance) in the 8 years or so > that I owned her. When I bought "Ulysses", the system that came with it > was a grease-packed sleeve that I've described here before (it used a > screw-driven grease pump to keep it full.) The sleeve rusted out after a > while, so I used a piece of stainless pipe and a PSS to replace it. It's > been about 8 or 9 years since then; again, zero trouble and zero > maintenance. Oh, and zero saltwater coming in, too - no "drip rate" to > worry about. > > Looking around on the Web, Defender has the PSS for $340.99. Anyone > who's spent enough hours hanging head-down in the bilge and cursing > while digging out stuffing (and hearing the salt water coming in all the > while) would be more than glad to pay that amount to _never_ have to do > that again. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              443-250-7895      end_of_the_skype_highlighting http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24481|24457|2010-11-13 16:10:25|pynrc@aol.com|Re: Shaft Seals|Doug, I made stainless steel seal carriers and mounted them on bits of rubber hose secured by hose clamps to the ends of the shaft tube. Two lip seals in each carrier. The metal springs in the seals were replaced with 'O' rings. The outer hose clamps needed replacement each few years due to crevice corrosion. The outer bearing was a fibre bush. At the inner end the shaft is supported with a thrust bearing which rides on rubber bushes and is secured by two bolts (part of our Scatra Aquadrive CV system). I initially had another fibre bush at the inside end of the tube but it wore the shaft excessively and I took it out. Although I can't be sure, I think the system ultimately failed due to a small amount of play in the outer bearing, which allowed vibration and this made the seals leak, as they only leaked when the shaft was turning. I have had the PSS seal for at least ten years and have not touched it, ( have just fitted a shaft collar butting up to it as an extra safety) although they say the bellows should be replaced every eight years or so. At the moment the outer bush has about 1mm play and the shaft rattles a bit at times but this does not seem to cause any dramas with the seal.. Regards, Richard. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24482|24482|2010-11-13 17:40:40|wild_explorer|Surf on not to surf?|Some sailboat's hulls (semi-displacement) able to surf and exceed the speed of displacement hull up to 2 times. Is it good or bad for ocean going boat? I read that it is good things when boat going downwind in strong wind and relatively low waves. But bad thing in high waves. Boat could surf from the top of the wave at high speed and slam into next wave. Does anybody have hands-on experience (or information) on this subject?| 24483|24457|2010-11-13 19:50:05|brentswain38|Re: Shaft Seals|I use a bronze oilite bearing for a stern bearing,which is such a close fit I don't need a seal behind it. Neither do friends who use a cutless bearing . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > "hook up a grease gun to it and pump the stern tube full of grease." > > Do you put a seal behind the cutlass bearing and completely fill the stern > tube? > > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: brentswain38 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Fri, November 12, 2010 3:24:09 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Shaft Seals > > > Lengthening or shortening the rubber hose on your stuffing box lets the packing > bear on a different part of the shaft. If your mounts are not to soft and > floppy, you can drill and tap a 1/8th inch pipe thread in your stern tube , hook > up a grease gun to it and pump the stern tube full of grease. > Over tightening the stuffing box initially will score your shaft, and then it > will never seal, until you shift it to an unscored part of the shaft. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > > > The Volvo rubber packing sounds very interesting. I have had nothing but > >problems with my stuffing box even though I have replaced the flax material. My > >shaft is indented slightly in spots where the suffing material was and I think > >overheating (to tight on the locking nut) may have resulted in shaft damage. So > >the Volvo rubber packing might work for me. I am getting way too much water in > >the bilge when cruising under power and when anchored I have to tighten down the > >stuffing box to keep the bilge pump from turning on. > > > > ...I will check out that link > > > > thanks > > Gary > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > > > Lip seals are common in New Zealand but quite expensive for what they > > > are....one type is here: > > > > > > http://www.kiwiseal.com/ > > > > > > The site seems to be down right now but you can go to > > > http://www.henleyspropellers.com/products.htm for more info and a picture. > > > > > > I don't think you gain much over a regular stuffing box. You need a > > > bearing to keep the lip seal aligned to the shaft or it will wear fast > > > if it is a flexibly mounted. The PSS is very good but expensive. > > > > > > Rather than a regular lip seal or PSS, I just put a Volvo Rubber Packing > > > on my boat which is an all in one molding complete with shaft bearing > > > and lip seals. They are know to last about 8-10 years, reasonably > > > priced, and virtually drip-less if lubed once a year. It was actually > > > recommended to me by one of the designers of a lip-type seal in NZ. > > > > > > > >http://www.volvopenta.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Penta/Parts%20brochures/Rubber%20Stuffing%20Box%20(Eng).pdf > > > > > > > > It is not a recommendation, but they are common on Beneteau chart boats > > > so I assume they are low maintenance and cheap :). You could have a > > > spare for the price of a PSS. > > > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > > > On 11/12/2010 4:18 PM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > > > > > So why are lip seals or split seals not used as shaft seals instead of > > > > stuffing boxes or PSS seals? > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > > Version: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3250 - Release Date: 11/11/10 > >20:34:00 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24484|24457|2010-11-13 19:51:24|brentswain38|Re: Shaft Seals|I've never had any more than a tiny bit of grease inside. Neither did Doug and Judy on Moom Raven. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > Brent.... I did put in the grease nipple and plugged up the stern tube with grease. The grease (marine grease) still came out and made a watery greasy mess of things from the engine to the bilge. Most of the grease has hopefully washed out by now that was in the stern tube. Good idea about shifting the stuffing box a bit off of the scored area. I will try that and the stuffing box again. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Lengthening or shortening the rubber hose on your stuffing box lets the packing bear on a different part of the shaft. If your mounts are not to soft and floppy, you can drill and tap a 1/8th inch pipe thread in your stern tube , hook up a grease gun to it and pump the stern tube full of grease. > > Over tightening the stuffing box initially will score your shaft, and then it will never seal, until you shift it to an unscored part of the shaft. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > > > > > The Volvo rubber packing sounds very interesting. I have had nothing but problems with my stuffing box even though I have replaced the flax material. My shaft is indented slightly in spots where the suffing material was and I think overheating (to tight on the locking nut) may have resulted in shaft damage. So the Volvo rubber packing might work for me. I am getting way too much water in the bilge when cruising under power and when anchored I have to tighten down the stuffing box to keep the bilge pump from turning on. > > > > > > ...I will check out that link > > > > > > thanks > > > Gary > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > > > > > Lip seals are common in New Zealand but quite expensive for what they > > > > are....one type is here: > > > > > > > > http://www.kiwiseal.com/ > > > > > > > > The site seems to be down right now but you can go to > > > > http://www.henleyspropellers.com/products.htm for more info and a picture. > > > > > > > > I don't think you gain much over a regular stuffing box. You need a > > > > bearing to keep the lip seal aligned to the shaft or it will wear fast > > > > if it is a flexibly mounted. The PSS is very good but expensive. > > > > > > > > Rather than a regular lip seal or PSS, I just put a Volvo Rubber Packing > > > > on my boat which is an all in one molding complete with shaft bearing > > > > and lip seals. They are know to last about 8-10 years, reasonably > > > > priced, and virtually drip-less if lubed once a year. It was actually > > > > recommended to me by one of the designers of a lip-type seal in NZ. > > > > > > > > http://www.volvopenta.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Penta/Parts%20brochures/Rubber%20Stuffing%20Box%20(Eng).pdf > > > > > > > > It is not a recommendation, but they are common on Beneteau chart boats > > > > so I assume they are low maintenance and cheap :). You could have a > > > > spare for the price of a PSS. > > > > > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > > > > > On 11/12/2010 4:18 PM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > So why are lip seals or split seals not used as shaft seals instead of > > > > > stuffing boxes or PSS seals? > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > > > Version: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3250 - Release Date: 11/11/10 20:34:00 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | 24485|24482|2010-11-13 20:22:50|Matt Malone|Re: Surf on not to surf?|Only what I have read. Surfing down and burying the bow is very bad. A very strong drogue line might help. The round the world racers use software and fancy autopilots, use the speed, avoid the catastrophe. They are not always successful. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:40:29 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Surf on not to surf? Some sailboat's hulls (semi-displacement) able to surf and exceed the speed of displacement hull up to 2 times. Is it good or bad for ocean going boat? I read that it is good things when boat going downwind in strong wind and relatively low waves. But bad thing in high waves. Boat could surf from the top of the wave at high speed and slam into next wave. Does anybody have hands-on experience (or information) on this subject? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24486|24482|2010-11-13 22:34:01|Ben Okopnik|Re: Surf on not to surf?|On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:22:41PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > Only what I have read. Surfing down and burying the bow is very bad. > A very strong drogue line might help. The round the world racers use > software and fancy autopilots, use the speed, avoid the catastrophe. > They are not always successful. One of the roughest and probably most dangerous moments I ever experienced on my previous boat was when it surfed, when I rounded Cabo Cabron in the Dominican Republic. The wind, if I recall correctly, was from the southeast; we'd been mostly screened from it by the high hills of the north coast, and had been cruising along in nearly flat water with a good breeze. I figured that since I would now have a lee shore to the west meant that I should stand off a bit, so I decided to give it another mile of easting before I tacked. Suddenly - and I mean, in the space of about 30 seconds - we went from 15 kt and a little chop to *very* short 6-8 footers and 30-35 kt (estimated), and were surfing down very steep wave faces. We were way over-canvassed and desperately needed to reef, but there was no way for me to leave the helm; my girlfriend couldn't have handled steering for even a minute, and I couldn't even imagine trying to send her forward to reef (the boat was pitching like a runaway horse.) Steering was extremely tricky: as you were coming up the back of a wave, you had to head up - try to lose some speed, but not so much that you'd slide back into the trough - and as you came over the top and onto the face, you had to fall off and strike a fine balance between burying the bow and turning beam on to the waves, find a middle path between tripping over and rolling over. I tried to get out of it by heading for the bay that was just around the point (Bahia Galeras, Google Maps tells me), but saw what looked like a fence of rocky teeth across the mouth of it. Now, I was trying to claw off a lee shore _and_ survive this crazy sea. Fortunately, "Recessional" was a terrific sailer - she could tack on a dime, and in general sailed like a racing dinghy instead of a 33' boat. In the lazarette, right behind the tiller, I had a parachute drogue that I bought before taking off; I'd never used one before, but I figured that this was the time for it. I'd already rigged a bridle for it before I stowed it, so I just flipped the loops over my stern cleats and streamed the drogue over the side. It almost sank us immediately. As soon as the line came under load, the stern wouldn't rise anymore - and the wave behind us rolled over us, filling the cockpit and slamming the boom over so hard that I thought it broke (fortunately, it didn't.) I figured that another wave like that would finish us, so I grabbed my Spyderco knife (I always used to wear one on my shorts) and sliced that drogue loose just before another wave reached us... and we rode that one just as we'd been riding the ones before it. It took us about 45 minutes to clear the next point of land, at which point things started calming down, and we headed in for Samana. It took me a couple of hours to come down off that adrenalin high. What I should have done, in retrospect, is stand off to the *north* and east by a couple of miles before rounding that point. If we had cleared that wind shadow with plenty of offing, I'd have seen how things were, and had lots of sea room and time to think everything out. I suspect that most boats wouldn't have behaved as well as "Recessional" did in those seas... we really were lucky. So, yeah - surfing is not a good thing. You could trip and flip, or roll, or just take a lot of damage to your rig or boat depending on what happens. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24487|24482|2010-11-13 23:57:12|Matt Malone|Re: Surf on not to surf?|I only have helm experience with short-period steep "chop" because the lake I sail is only 30 km long, and the longest fetch is only about 10-15 km. In a 35-50 kt wind, there are some very steep 6 footers with maybe 20 feet between peaks. The boat was a 23 foot Grampian, sleeps 5 people, but only 4.5 feet of headroom in most of it. On a 23 foot boat that was more excitement then I needed. Had the same experience as Ben, came out of a wind-shadow suddenly, then could not leave the helm. There were times the troughs seemed to be just the shape of the boat, the boat would drop into the hole between waves and stop very suddenly, like a detente-ball dropping into its socket. The huge hatchway was open but I could not get to it. There is not a lot of volume inside a 23 footer to swallow a second wave and keep going. Luckily, I was tacking upwind when I went into it, and already had the main reefed down to the point that the numbers were on the boom. I held that heading until I slowly beat across the wind and waves about 3 km until I was in the lee of the next island. No water went below but I was getting hit by slugs of 10-20 liters of water at a time coming completely airborne over the boat, never touching the deck, and hitting me square in the head and chest. 20 Liters is a lot of water -- it felt like I was getting hit by a bantam hockey player. Once into the lee, I closed the hatch tight and took a more down-wind course. There was a lot of surfing but in the short, steep waves it was very hairy. One would take off on a surf very quickly, only to stop very suddenly in a trough. The stern kept trying to pass the bow. I managed not to broach it that time, but I did another time surfing downwind and it threw stuff from the table on one side up onto galley counter on the other. That boat has a relatively large transom-hung rudder, but the surfing and short steep waves were pitching the stern up so much at some points that it seemed that only half of the usual length of rudder was in the water some times. In any case, there were large variations in the degree of control offered by the rudder. I have been in the water and on a surfboard in 30 foot breaking waves (100 yards between peaks) with a hurricane offshore and felt more in control. Steep waves, even relatively small ones, that induce surfing can be very hairy. A larger wave with that steepness, one could get going very fast, bad things could happen very quickly. I have to say though that helm experience must play a huge role. I was out in a 35 footer, again, a hurricane off-shore, steep waves, 15-20 footers, maybe 60-70 feet apart. The ride was very rough, but the skipper kept the boat from slewing or rolling too much -- there never seemed any danger of losing control. The boat never surfed. Another time in the Irish Sea, I was on a large ferry. It was reportedly their worst crossing in 20 years. 50 foot waves, 200 yards apart, the ferry was pitching it seemed +/- 25 degrees, leaping off one wave crashing down in the trough. 70% of the passengers were vomiting. There was so much vomit, it was flowing down the corridors every time the boat pitched. Of course the ferry never surfed, and the vessel never seemed to be in any trouble. I have no idea how the transport trucks below managed to stayed upright though -- must have been chained down. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:33:48 -0500 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Surf on not to surf? On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:22:41PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > Only what I have read. Surfing down and burying the bow is very bad. > A very strong drogue line might help. The round the world racers use > software and fancy autopilots, use the speed, avoid the catastrophe. > They are not always successful. One of the roughest and probably most dangerous moments I ever experienced on my previous boat was when it surfed, when I rounded Cabo Cabron in the Dominican Republic. The wind, if I recall correctly, was from the southeast; we'd been mostly screened from it by the high hills of the north coast, and had been cruising along in nearly flat water with a good breeze. I figured that since I would now have a lee shore to the west meant that I should stand off a bit, so I decided to give it another mile of easting before I tacked. Suddenly - and I mean, in the space of about 30 seconds - we went from 15 kt and a little chop to *very* short 6-8 footers and 30-35 kt (estimated), and were surfing down very steep wave faces. We were way over-canvassed and desperately needed to reef, but there was no way for me to leave the helm; my girlfriend couldn't have handled steering for even a minute, and I couldn't even imagine trying to send her forward to reef (the boat was pitching like a runaway horse.) Steering was extremely tricky: as you were coming up the back of a wave, you had to head up - try to lose some speed, but not so much that you'd slide back into the trough - and as you came over the top and onto the face, you had to fall off and strike a fine balance between burying the bow and turning beam on to the waves, find a middle path between tripping over and rolling over. I tried to get out of it by heading for the bay that was just around the point (Bahia Galeras, Google Maps tells me), but saw what looked like a fence of rocky teeth across the mouth of it. Now, I was trying to claw off a lee shore _and_ survive this crazy sea. Fortunately, "Recessional" was a terrific sailer - she could tack on a dime, and in general sailed like a racing dinghy instead of a 33' boat. In the lazarette, right behind the tiller, I had a parachute drogue that I bought before taking off; I'd never used one before, but I figured that this was the time for it. I'd already rigged a bridle for it before I stowed it, so I just flipped the loops over my stern cleats and streamed the drogue over the side. It almost sank us immediately. As soon as the line came under load, the stern wouldn't rise anymore - and the wave behind us rolled over us, filling the cockpit and slamming the boom over so hard that I thought it broke (fortunately, it didn't.) I figured that another wave like that would finish us, so I grabbed my Spyderco knife (I always used to wear one on my shorts) and sliced that drogue loose just before another wave reached us... and we rode that one just as we'd been riding the ones before it. It took us about 45 minutes to clear the next point of land, at which point things started calming down, and we headed in for Samana. It took me a couple of hours to come down off that adrenalin high. What I should have done, in retrospect, is stand off to the *north* and east by a couple of miles before rounding that point. If we had cleared that wind shadow with plenty of offing, I'd have seen how things were, and had lots of sea room and time to think everything out. I suspect that most boats wouldn't have behaved as well as "Recessional" did in those seas... we really were lucky. So, yeah - surfing is not a good thing. You could trip and flip, or roll, or just take a lot of damage to your rig or boat depending on what happens. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24488|24482|2010-11-14 06:29:13|mauro gonzaga|Re: Surf on not to surf?|I quote the sentence of Carlo Sciarrelli, when he designed the boat for the Italian Navy "Sagittario" partecipating to the OSTAR, skippered by Commander Franco Faggioni in 1972. The Italian Navy could not take any risk and safety was the first aim. "I considered wrong for a boat designed to the single handed transatlantic race the attitude to plane. Big problem if the Sagittario, all alone, without brake, starts a surf at 18 - 20 knots. Unvoidably, the boat, I believe, without anybody at the helm would conclude in sharp deviation (extra steering?) which with the wind and wave corresponding to this situation, with only one man aboard, would provoke a situation which fears me only to think about"    Fourty years have passed since, with such a boat you will never win, useless to race without possibility of winning, then the modern transatlantic racer are designed for planing. But they have brave athlets at the helm virtually always awake. Are you one of those? Mauro   --- On Sat, 11/13/10, wild_explorer wrote: From: wild_explorer Subject: [origamiboats] Surf on not to surf? To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, November 13, 2010, 11:40 PM   Some sailboat's hulls (semi-displacement) able to surf and exceed the speed of displacement hull up to 2 times. Is it good or bad for ocean going boat? I read that it is good things when boat going downwind in strong wind and relatively low waves. But bad thing in high waves. Boat could surf from the top of the wave at high speed and slam into next wave. Does anybody have hands-on experience (or information) on this subject? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24489|24482|2010-11-14 12:33:50|Ben Okopnik|Re: Surf on not to surf?|On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:57:10PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > > I only have helm experience with short-period steep "chop" because the > lake I sail is only 30 km long, and the longest fetch is only about > 10-15 km. In a 35-50 kt wind, there are some very steep 6 footers > with maybe 20 feet between peaks. The boat was a 23 foot Grampian, > sleeps 5 people, but only 4.5 feet of headroom in most of it. On a > 23 foot boat that was more excitement then I needed. Had the same > experience as Ben, came out of a wind-shadow suddenly, then could not > leave the helm. There were times the troughs seemed to be just the > shape of the boat, the boat would drop into the hole between waves and > stop very suddenly, like a detente-ball dropping into its socket. Oh yeah... thanks for the reminder. I'll be sure to dream about it tonight. :))) > No water went below > but I was getting hit by slugs of 10-20 liters of water at a time > coming completely airborne over the boat, never touching the deck, and > hitting me square in the head and chest. 20 Liters is a lot of water > -- it felt like I was getting hit by a bantam hockey player. I recall that when reading one of the boats on nautical architecture - may have been Skenes, but I wouldn't swear to it - the calculated impact for a breaking wave is 3 tons per square foot (a quick Google search turns up an article from Popular Mechanics, which quotes 2.9 tons/ft^2 - close enough.) This would explain things like pilothouses being swept away and so on. Rough calculation, assuming I still remember my basic physics, says that you were stopping ~140lbs of impact with your chest. Not exactly what I'd call a good time. Didn't happen in the situation that I described, but I've sure seen those flying "chunks" of water you're talking about. By then, though, I had "Ulysses", so the doghouse stopped'em. > was very hairy. One would take off on a surf very quickly, only to > stop very suddenly in a trough. The stern kept trying to pass the > bow. Yep. For the first wave or two, until I figured out how to steer through it, that's exactly what it was like. > That boat has a relatively large > transom-hung rudder, but the surfing and short steep waves were > pitching the stern up so much at some points that it seemed that only > half of the usual length of rudder was in the water some times. In > any case, there were large variations in the degree of control offered > by the rudder. Again, I have to be grateful to the people who designed "Recessional" - she was an OSTAR boat, and I believe that the Dufour people had a hand in the original design. Whatever else happened during that time, the boat behaved impeccably and gave me all the control I needed. It really did feel like sailing in a dinghy: completely and instantly responsive to input from the tiller. As much as I love "Ulysses", what with the comfort aboard and the sea-kindliness... that's one thing that I truly miss about "Recessional". That, and the ability to do 4kt in a 5kt wind. Can't have it all, though. Darn it. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24490|24490|2010-11-14 20:12:30|Ben Okopnik|TAT pumps|Great idea, simple execution. Looks like you could build one of these yourself pretty cheaply and easily, too. http://www.tatpumps.com/Pages/about.html I wonder why they're not more popular. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24491|24449|2010-11-15 00:45:19|Gord Schnell|Re: Pilothouse|Brent I understand you have plans for a pilothouse. I built one for my 40', but I'm not real impressed with how it looks and with it's weight. What are you asking for the plans. Gord On 10-Nov-10, at 1:47 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > Mark > Yes I have plans for a pilot house and would be happy to help you > get one together for Phsyche. > Metal would be best, as pilothouses have been considered a weak spot > in other materials . We could build it ashore, detail it, then put > it on in a day. It could be done in aluminium. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" > wrote: > > > > Brent: > > Do you have plans for the pilothouse?? > > I wanted to putt one on Psyche that I just purchased in CRiver. I > do not have much experience welding and was wondering about making > one out of solid fiberglass and/or epoxy coated plywood and then > bolting it in place?? I am familiar with those materials. > > I could also cut out all the steel or aluminum sheet and have it > welded and then install but I was wondering if it might warp unless > it was held in a form of some kind. > > All thoughts appreciated. MarkH > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24492|24490|2010-11-15 01:05:02|pendleton999|Re: TAT pumps|> Great idea, simple execution. Looks like you could build one of these > yourself pretty cheaply and easily, too. > > http://www.tatpumps.com/Pages/about.html > > I wonder why they're not more popular. > They used to be used on a lot of farm equipment, don't know if they still are. We called them squeeze pumps.| 24493|24490|2010-11-15 06:12:15|boatwayupnorth|Re: TAT pumps|That looks as foolproof as it gets! The only thing that could fail is when the hose develops cracks by being squeezed again and again, especially in cold weather. Does anybody know what material the hose is made of? Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > Great idea, simple execution. Looks like you could build one of these > yourself pretty cheaply and easily, too. > > http://www.tatpumps.com/Pages/about.html > > I wonder why they're not more popular. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24494|24490|2010-11-15 09:02:38|j fisher|Re: TAT pumps|They are used a lot in medical and other industries where they want no contact between the pump and the material being moved. John On 11/14/10, Ben Okopnik wrote: > Great idea, simple execution. Looks like you could build one of these > yourself pretty cheaply and easily, too. > > http://www.tatpumps.com/Pages/about.html > > I wonder why they're not more popular. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24495|24490|2010-11-15 09:14:55|ed_lithgow|Re: TAT pumps|Also(and perhaps more commonly?)KA a peristaltic pump. Very common in lab and biomedical equipment requiring the movement of fluids, such as chromatography, dialysis, protein or DNA sequencers, etc... I think one advantage is the fluid isn't in contact with impellers, pistons etc and so doesn't get contaminated or sheared. Volume delivered is limited though. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > Great idea, simple execution. Looks like you could build one of these > yourself pretty cheaply and easily, too. > > http://www.tatpumps.com/Pages/about.html > > I wonder why they're not more popular. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24496|24490|2010-11-15 09:39:39|David Frantz|Re: TAT pumps|We use a lot of peristaltic pumps at work. I'm not to sure that I could reccomend them for a boat. They are fiddly and you need to replace the hoses often. David A Frantz websterindustro@... Sent from my iPhone. On Nov 15, 2010, at 9:14 AM, ed_lithgow wrote: > > > > Also(and perhaps more commonly?)KA a peristaltic pump. Very common in lab and biomedical equipment requiring the movement of fluids, such as chromatography, dialysis, protein or DNA sequencers, etc... > > I think one advantage is the fluid isn't in contact with impellers, pistons etc and so doesn't get contaminated or sheared. > > Volume delivered is limited though. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: >> >> Great idea, simple execution. Looks like you could build one of these >> yourself pretty cheaply and easily, too. >> >> http://www.tatpumps.com/Pages/about.html >> >> I wonder why they're not more popular. >> >> >> -- >> OKOPNIK CONSULTING >> Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business >> Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming >> 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24497|24482|2010-11-15 12:08:44|Matt Malone|Re: Surf on not to surf?|But, Along with all the problems with surfing / planing, I have surfed the same boat once and it was a quiet controllable, quite smooth experience. I was running off on a broad reach at night, and the wind stiffened slightly. The boat leapt up onto a plane and stayed there for several minutes, going 45 degrees or so to the waves, with no squirming sensation about the stern. When it came down off the surf, it was a slow gentle transition. I have to say, the big difference was, the waves were very small, not at all steep, and the boat reached planing speed only because of the direction I was headed, and the barely sufficient wind for planing. It was totally different from other times where the same boat was pushed to surf by steep waves and very heavy winds. Of course I have planed a much sleaker hull, like the Laser, and that is an entirely different story -- it came up on a plane and surfed when the wind and waves were quite moderate. I am assuming Wild Explorer was asking about surfing a large displacement cruiser where the forces involved are much more significant -- getting the entire apartment, stores and equipment, up on a plane in the open ocean is entirely different from getting a wide surfboard up on a plane a few hundred meters off the beach. If you are welding up your own boat, you can always make a place for the laser to fit nicely. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:33:44 -0500 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Surf on not to surf? On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:57:10PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > > I only have helm experience with short-period steep "chop" because the > lake I sail is only 30 km long, and the longest fetch is only about > 10-15 km. In a 35-50 kt wind, there are some very steep 6 footers > with maybe 20 feet between peaks. The boat was a 23 foot Grampian, > sleeps 5 people, but only 4.5 feet of headroom in most of it. On a > 23 foot boat that was more excitement then I needed. Had the same > experience as Ben, came out of a wind-shadow suddenly, then could not > leave the helm. There were times the troughs seemed to be just the > shape of the boat, the boat would drop into the hole between waves and > stop very suddenly, like a detente-ball dropping into its socket. Oh yeah... thanks for the reminder. I'll be sure to dream about it tonight. :))) > No water went below > but I was getting hit by slugs of 10-20 liters of water at a time > coming completely airborne over the boat, never touching the deck, and > hitting me square in the head and chest. 20 Liters is a lot of water > -- it felt like I was getting hit by a bantam hockey player. I recall that when reading one of the boats on nautical architecture - may have been Skenes, but I wouldn't swear to it - the calculated impact for a breaking wave is 3 tons per square foot (a quick Google search turns up an article from Popular Mechanics, which quotes 2.9 tons/ft^2 - close enough.) This would explain things like pilothouses being swept away and so on. Rough calculation, assuming I still remember my basic physics, says that you were stopping ~140lbs of impact with your chest. Not exactly what I'd call a good time. Didn't happen in the situation that I described, but I've sure seen those flying "chunks" of water you're talking about. By then, though, I had "Ulysses", so the doghouse stopped'em. > was very hairy. One would take off on a surf very quickly, only to > stop very suddenly in a trough. The stern kept trying to pass the > bow. Yep. For the first wave or two, until I figured out how to steer through it, that's exactly what it was like. > That boat has a relatively large > transom-hung rudder, but the surfing and short steep waves were > pitching the stern up so much at some points that it seemed that only > half of the usual length of rudder was in the water some times. In > any case, there were large variations in the degree of control offered > by the rudder. Again, I have to be grateful to the people who designed "Recessional" - she was an OSTAR boat, and I believe that the Dufour people had a hand in the original design. Whatever else happened during that time, the boat behaved impeccably and gave me all the control I needed. It really did feel like sailing in a dinghy: completely and instantly responsive to input from the tiller. As much as I love "Ulysses", what with the comfort aboard and the sea-kindliness... that's one thing that I truly miss about "Recessional". That, and the ability to do 4kt in a 5kt wind. Can't have it all, though. Darn it. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24498|24490|2010-11-15 12:52:54|wild_explorer|Re: TAT pumps|Every hospital has bunch of them for blood transfusion. The main advantage of this pump - it does not damage blood cells and gently push the blood along the hose maintaining constant pressure. Would not be very useful for a boat. Regular hand pump will be more efficient. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > Great idea, simple execution. Looks like you could build one of these > yourself pretty cheaply and easily, too. > > http://www.tatpumps.com/Pages/about.html > > I wonder why they're not more popular. | 24499|24482|2010-11-15 13:00:04|wild_explorer|Re: Surf on not to surf?|Yep, I am talking about 36-40ft sailboat. I need to choose between several 3D models. One does not plane, another one has gentle transition, one - steep. Steep planing is not good at all - it suddenly accelerates according to your description and require low propulsion input to keep it planing, but high input to make it planing. Need to decide between two remaining. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > I am assuming Wild Explorer was asking about surfing a large displacement cruiser where the forces involved are much more significant -- getting the entire apartment, stores and equipment, up on a plane in the open ocean is entirely different from getting a wide surfboard up on a plane a few hundred meters off the beach. > | 24500|24482|2010-11-15 13:13:28|Mark Hamill|Re: Surf on not to surf?|My Wharram cat has surfed down waves while I was running downwind on Georgia Strait many times. It obviously doesn't get up on a plane just rides the front of the wave and eventually falls off as the wave passes under it. This lasts about 30 seconds and I sometimes go over 14 knots. If I am in strong enough winds I can keep up with the waves I therefore can surf for quite awhile. Control is not a problem. The larger wharram cat Earthlight once surfed down the front of a very large wave and came to an abrupt stop without damage at the bottom. His bow stuck into the wave. He tried not to do that again he said as it was rather hair raising. One remedy to burying the bow and to safe surfing down big waves was used by a french tri sailor/racer in the southern oceans and consisted of big sponsons built into the bow and extending back about 1/3 of the hull that prevented the bow from burying. He said they worked really well and thought it was the only remedy for pitchpoling--just looked a bit odd. I use a similar idea on my freighter canoe when i use an OB--the hull shape is normal until a certain height where I have built a "step" and as the stern squats with increased power it hits the step and the bouyancy increases and it just sits at that level even as more power is applied. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Malone" To: Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 9:08 AM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Surf on not to surf? > > > But, > > Along with all the problems with surfing / planing, I have surfed the same > boat once and it was a quiet controllable, quite smooth experience. I was > running off on a broad reach at night, and the wind stiffened slightly. > The boat leapt up onto a plane and stayed there for several minutes, going > 45 degrees or so to the waves, with no squirming sensation about the > stern. When it came down off the surf, it was a slow gentle transition. > I have to say, the big difference was, the waves were very small, not at > all steep, and the boat reached planing speed only because of the > direction I was headed, and the barely sufficient wind for planing. It > was totally different from other times where the same boat was pushed to > surf by steep waves and very heavy winds. > > Of course I have planed a much sleaker hull, like the Laser, and that is > an entirely different story -- it came up on a plane and surfed when the > wind and waves were quite moderate. I am assuming Wild Explorer was > asking about surfing a large displacement cruiser where the forces > involved are much more significant -- getting the entire apartment, stores > and equipment, up on a plane in the open ocean is entirely different from > getting a wide surfboard up on a plane a few hundred meters off the beach. > > If you are welding up your own boat, you can always make a place for the > laser to fit nicely. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: ben@... > Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:33:44 -0500 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Surf on not to surf? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:57:10PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > >> > >> > >> I only have helm experience with short-period steep "chop" because the > >> lake I sail is only 30 km long, and the longest fetch is only about > >> 10-15 km. In a 35-50 kt wind, there are some very steep 6 footers > >> with maybe 20 feet between peaks. The boat was a 23 foot Grampian, > >> sleeps 5 people, but only 4.5 feet of headroom in most of it. On a > >> 23 foot boat that was more excitement then I needed. Had the same > >> experience as Ben, came out of a wind-shadow suddenly, then could not > >> leave the helm. There were times the troughs seemed to be just the > >> shape of the boat, the boat would drop into the hole between waves and > >> stop very suddenly, like a detente-ball dropping into its socket. > > > > Oh yeah... thanks for the reminder. I'll be sure to dream about it > > tonight. :))) > > > >> No water went below > >> but I was getting hit by slugs of 10-20 liters of water at a time > >> coming completely airborne over the boat, never touching the deck, and > >> hitting me square in the head and chest. 20 Liters is a lot of water > >> -- it felt like I was getting hit by a bantam hockey player. > > > > I recall that when reading one of the boats on nautical architecture - > > may have been Skenes, but I wouldn't swear to it - the calculated impact > > for a breaking wave is 3 tons per square foot (a quick Google search > > turns up an article from Popular Mechanics, which quotes 2.9 tons/ft^2 - > > close enough.) This would explain things like pilothouses being swept > > away and so on. Rough calculation, assuming I still remember my basic > > physics, says that you were stopping ~140lbs of impact with your chest. > > Not exactly what I'd call a good time. > > > > Didn't happen in the situation that I described, but I've sure seen > > those flying "chunks" of water you're talking about. By then, though, I > > had "Ulysses", so the doghouse stopped'em. > > > >> was very hairy. One would take off on a surf very quickly, only to > >> stop very suddenly in a trough. The stern kept trying to pass the > >> bow. > > > > Yep. For the first wave or two, until I figured out how to steer through > > it, that's exactly what it was like. > > > >> That boat has a relatively large > >> transom-hung rudder, but the surfing and short steep waves were > >> pitching the stern up so much at some points that it seemed that only > >> half of the usual length of rudder was in the water some times. In > >> any case, there were large variations in the degree of control offered > >> by the rudder. > > > > Again, I have to be grateful to the people who designed "Recessional" - > > she was an OSTAR boat, and I believe that the Dufour people had a hand > > in the original design. Whatever else happened during that time, the > > boat behaved impeccably and gave me all the control I needed. It really > > did feel like sailing in a dinghy: completely and instantly responsive > > to input from the tiller. > > > > As much as I love "Ulysses", what with the comfort aboard and the > > sea-kindliness... that's one thing that I truly miss about > > "Recessional". That, and the ability to do 4kt in a 5kt wind. Can't have > > it all, though. Darn it. > > > > > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24501|24482|2010-11-15 13:43:14|Mark Hamill|Re: Surf on not to surf?|I found a paper online about this that may be of interest/value?? http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/research_report_502_phase_1.pdf MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Surf on not to surf? My Wharram cat has surfed down waves while I was running downwind on Georgia Strait many times. It obviously doesn't get up on a plane just rides the front of the wave and eventually falls off as the wave passes under it. This lasts about 30 seconds and I sometimes go over 14 knots. If I am in strong enough winds I can keep up with the waves I therefore can surf for quite awhile. Control is not a problem. The larger wharram cat Earthlight once surfed down the front of a very large wave and came to an abrupt stop without damage at the bottom. His bow stuck into the wave. He tried not to do that again he said as it was rather hair raising. One remedy to burying the bow and to safe surfing down big waves was used by a french tri sailor/racer in the southern oceans and consisted of big sponsons built into the bow and extending back about 1/3 of the hull that prevented the bow from burying. He said they worked really well and thought it was the only remedy for pitchpoling--just looked a bit odd. I use a similar idea on my freighter canoe when i use an OB--the hull shape is normal until a certain height where I have built a "step" and as the stern squats with increased power it hits the step and the bouyancy increases and it just sits at that level even as more power is applied. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Malone" To: Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 9:08 AM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Surf on not to surf? > > > But, > > Along with all the problems with surfing / planing, I have surfed the same > boat once and it was a quiet controllable, quite smooth experience. I was > running off on a broad reach at night, and the wind stiffened slightly. > The boat leapt up onto a plane and stayed there for several minutes, going > 45 degrees or so to the waves, with no squirming sensation about the > stern. When it came down off the surf, it was a slow gentle transition. > I have to say, the big difference was, the waves were very small, not at > all steep, and the boat reached planing speed only because of the > direction I was headed, and the barely sufficient wind for planing. It > was totally different from other times where the same boat was pushed to > surf by steep waves and very heavy winds. > > Of course I have planed a much sleaker hull, like the Laser, and that is > an entirely different story -- it came up on a plane and surfed when the > wind and waves were quite moderate. I am assuming Wild Explorer was > asking about surfing a large displacement cruiser where the forces > involved are much more significant -- getting the entire apartment, stores > and equipment, up on a plane in the open ocean is entirely different from > getting a wide surfboard up on a plane a few hundred meters off the beach. > > If you are welding up your own boat, you can always make a place for the > laser to fit nicely. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: ben@... > Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:33:44 -0500 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Surf on not to surf? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:57:10PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > >> > >> > >> I only have helm experience with short-period steep "chop" because the > >> lake I sail is only 30 km long, and the longest fetch is only about > >> 10-15 km. In a 35-50 kt wind, there are some very steep 6 footers > >> with maybe 20 feet between peaks. The boat was a 23 foot Grampian, > >> sleeps 5 people, but only 4.5 feet of headroom in most of it. On a > >> 23 foot boat that was more excitement then I needed. Had the same > >> experience as Ben, came out of a wind-shadow suddenly, then could not > >> leave the helm. There were times the troughs seemed to be just the > >> shape of the boat, the boat would drop into the hole between waves and > >> stop very suddenly, like a detente-ball dropping into its socket. > > > > Oh yeah... thanks for the reminder. I'll be sure to dream about it > > tonight. :))) > > > >> No water went below > >> but I was getting hit by slugs of 10-20 liters of water at a time > >> coming completely airborne over the boat, never touching the deck, and > >> hitting me square in the head and chest. 20 Liters is a lot of water > >> -- it felt like I was getting hit by a bantam hockey player. > > > > I recall that when reading one of the boats on nautical architecture - > > may have been Skenes, but I wouldn't swear to it - the calculated impact > > for a breaking wave is 3 tons per square foot (a quick Google search > > turns up an article from Popular Mechanics, which quotes 2.9 tons/ft^2 - > > close enough.) This would explain things like pilothouses being swept > > away and so on. Rough calculation, assuming I still remember my basic > > physics, says that you were stopping ~140lbs of impact with your chest. > > Not exactly what I'd call a good time. > > > > Didn't happen in the situation that I described, but I've sure seen > > those flying "chunks" of water you're talking about. By then, though, I > > had "Ulysses", so the doghouse stopped'em. > > > >> was very hairy. One would take off on a surf very quickly, only to > >> stop very suddenly in a trough. The stern kept trying to pass the > >> bow. > > > > Yep. For the first wave or two, until I figured out how to steer through > > it, that's exactly what it was like. > > > >> That boat has a relatively large > >> transom-hung rudder, but the surfing and short steep waves were > >> pitching the stern up so much at some points that it seemed that only > >> half of the usual length of rudder was in the water some times. In > >> any case, there were large variations in the degree of control offered > >> by the rudder. > > > > Again, I have to be grateful to the people who designed "Recessional" - > > she was an OSTAR boat, and I believe that the Dufour people had a hand > > in the original design. Whatever else happened during that time, the > > boat behaved impeccably and gave me all the control I needed. It really > > did feel like sailing in a dinghy: completely and instantly responsive > > to input from the tiller. > > > > As much as I love "Ulysses", what with the comfort aboard and the > > sea-kindliness... that's one thing that I truly miss about > > "Recessional". That, and the ability to do 4kt in a 5kt wind. Can't have > > it all, though. Darn it. > > > > > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24502|24482|2010-11-15 14:03:49|Matt Malone|Re: Surf on not to surf?|Very good link Mark Hamill. I particularly liked Figure 5.14 showing the overturn sequence of a hovercraft in waves, however, it look very much like the overturn sequence of a multi-hull that is laying a-hull in extreme weather. Note the water-wave orbital motion components. Most people forget, the water in a non-breaking wave is moving in a circle and the forces this can induce onto boats. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mhamill1@... Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:43:05 -0800 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Surf on not to surf? I found a paper online about this that may be of interest/value?? http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/research_report_502_phase_1.pdf MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Surf on not to surf? My Wharram cat has surfed down waves while I was running downwind on Georgia Strait many times. It obviously doesn't get up on a plane just rides the front of the wave and eventually falls off as the wave passes under it. This lasts about 30 seconds and I sometimes go over 14 knots. If I am in strong enough winds I can keep up with the waves I therefore can surf for quite awhile. Control is not a problem. The larger wharram cat Earthlight once surfed down the front of a very large wave and came to an abrupt stop without damage at the bottom. His bow stuck into the wave. He tried not to do that again he said as it was rather hair raising. One remedy to burying the bow and to safe surfing down big waves was used by a french tri sailor/racer in the southern oceans and consisted of big sponsons built into the bow and extending back about 1/3 of the hull that prevented the bow from burying. He said they worked really well and thought it was the only remedy for pitchpoling--just looked a bit odd. I use a similar idea on my freighter canoe when i use an OB--the hull shape is normal until a certain height where I have built a "step" and as the stern squats with increased power it hits the step and the bouyancy increases and it just sits at that level even as more power is applied. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Malone" To: Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 9:08 AM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Surf on not to surf? > > > But, > > Along with all the problems with surfing / planing, I have surfed the same > boat once and it was a quiet controllable, quite smooth experience. I was > running off on a broad reach at night, and the wind stiffened slightly. > The boat leapt up onto a plane and stayed there for several minutes, going > 45 degrees or so to the waves, with no squirming sensation about the > stern. When it came down off the surf, it was a slow gentle transition. > I have to say, the big difference was, the waves were very small, not at > all steep, and the boat reached planing speed only because of the > direction I was headed, and the barely sufficient wind for planing. It > was totally different from other times where the same boat was pushed to > surf by steep waves and very heavy winds. > > Of course I have planed a much sleaker hull, like the Laser, and that is > an entirely different story -- it came up on a plane and surfed when the > wind and waves were quite moderate. I am assuming Wild Explorer was > asking about surfing a large displacement cruiser where the forces > involved are much more significant -- getting the entire apartment, stores > and equipment, up on a plane in the open ocean is entirely different from > getting a wide surfboard up on a plane a few hundred meters off the beach. > > If you are welding up your own boat, you can always make a place for the > laser to fit nicely. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: ben@... > Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:33:44 -0500 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Surf on not to surf? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:57:10PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > >> > >> > >> I only have helm experience with short-period steep "chop" because the > >> lake I sail is only 30 km long, and the longest fetch is only about > >> 10-15 km. In a 35-50 kt wind, there are some very steep 6 footers > >> with maybe 20 feet between peaks. The boat was a 23 foot Grampian, > >> sleeps 5 people, but only 4.5 feet of headroom in most of it. On a > >> 23 foot boat that was more excitement then I needed. Had the same > >> experience as Ben, came out of a wind-shadow suddenly, then could not > >> leave the helm. There were times the troughs seemed to be just the > >> shape of the boat, the boat would drop into the hole between waves and > >> stop very suddenly, like a detente-ball dropping into its socket. > > > > Oh yeah... thanks for the reminder. I'll be sure to dream about it > > tonight. :))) > > > >> No water went below > >> but I was getting hit by slugs of 10-20 liters of water at a time > >> coming completely airborne over the boat, never touching the deck, and > >> hitting me square in the head and chest. 20 Liters is a lot of water > >> -- it felt like I was getting hit by a bantam hockey player. > > > > I recall that when reading one of the boats on nautical architecture - > > may have been Skenes, but I wouldn't swear to it - the calculated impact > > for a breaking wave is 3 tons per square foot (a quick Google search > > turns up an article from Popular Mechanics, which quotes 2.9 tons/ft^2 - > > close enough.) This would explain things like pilothouses being swept > > away and so on. Rough calculation, assuming I still remember my basic > > physics, says that you were stopping ~140lbs of impact with your chest. > > Not exactly what I'd call a good time. > > > > Didn't happen in the situation that I described, but I've sure seen > > those flying "chunks" of water you're talking about. By then, though, I > > had "Ulysses", so the doghouse stopped'em. > > > >> was very hairy. One would take off on a surf very quickly, only to > >> stop very suddenly in a trough. The stern kept trying to pass the > >> bow. > > > > Yep. For the first wave or two, until I figured out how to steer through > > it, that's exactly what it was like. > > > >> That boat has a relatively large > >> transom-hung rudder, but the surfing and short steep waves were > >> pitching the stern up so much at some points that it seemed that only > >> half of the usual length of rudder was in the water some times. In > >> any case, there were large variations in the degree of control offered > >> by the rudder. > > > > Again, I have to be grateful to the people who designed "Recessional" - > > she was an OSTAR boat, and I believe that the Dufour people had a hand > > in the original design. Whatever else happened during that time, the > > boat behaved impeccably and gave me all the control I needed. It really > > did feel like sailing in a dinghy: completely and instantly responsive > > to input from the tiller. > > > > As much as I love "Ulysses", what with the comfort aboard and the > > sea-kindliness... that's one thing that I truly miss about > > "Recessional". That, and the ability to do 4kt in a 5kt wind. Can't have > > it all, though. Darn it. > > > > > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24503|24490|2010-11-15 14:28:10|Ben Okopnik|Re: TAT pumps|On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 02:14:52PM -0000, ed_lithgow wrote: > > Also(and perhaps more commonly?)KA a peristaltic pump. Very common in > lab and biomedical equipment requiring the movement of fluids, such as > chromatography, dialysis, protein or DNA sequencers, etc... > > I think one advantage is the fluid isn't in contact with impellers, > pistons etc and so doesn't get contaminated or sheared. Yep. No specific benefit in, say, a bilge pump, but could be very nice in some other applications. > Volume delivered is limited though. 2100 GPH for their 220 series pump. It's not the world, but not too bad. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24504|24490|2010-11-15 14:29:43|Ben Okopnik|Re: TAT pumps|On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:12:14AM -0000, boatwayupnorth wrote: > That looks as foolproof as it gets! The only thing that could fail is > when the hose develops cracks by being squeezed again and again, > especially in cold weather. Does anybody know what material the hose > is made of? They seem to be keeping that part a secret. :) Although they do say this: 9 different tubing formulations are available -- so most chemicals, corrosives, and even abrasives are pumpable. So are foods, sterile solutions... even gases. From gases to abrasives. That's impressive. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24505|24490|2010-11-15 14:32:37|Ben Okopnik|Re: TAT pumps|On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 09:39:40AM -0500, David Frantz wrote: > We use a lot of peristaltic pumps at work. I'm not to sure that I > could reccomend them for a boat. They are fiddly and you need to > replace the hoses often. Ah. Well, that might be a reason. Out of curiosity, what are you pumping? What kind of flow rates? -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24506|24490|2010-11-15 14:38:00|Paul Thompson|Re: TAT pumps|Seems to me, the smallest 410-2-6A16X a 410 series pump could be just what is needed for pumping the cooling water in a water cooled condenser in a refrigeration application. I have had a lot of pump failures with my fridge. On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:12:14AM -0000, boatwayupnorth wrote: >> That looks as foolproof as it gets! The only thing that could fail is >> when the hose develops cracks by being squeezed again and again, >> especially in cold weather. Does anybody know what material the hose >> is made of? > > They seem to be keeping that part a secret. :) Although they do say > this: > >  9 different tubing formulations are available -- so most chemicals, >  corrosives, and even abrasives are pumpable. So are foods, sterile >  solutions... even gases. > > From gases to abrasives. That's impressive. > -- Regards, Paul Thompson | 24507|24490|2010-11-15 14:51:46|Ben Okopnik|Re: TAT pumps|On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 09:39:40AM -0500, David Frantz wrote: > We use a lot of peristaltic pumps at work. I'm not to sure that I > could reccomend them for a boat. They are fiddly and you need to > replace the hoses often. Somethign else occurs to me: someone mentioned that they were used on farm equipment. I don't think that would happen if they were either unreliable or fiddly. It seems that they actually do have a bilge pump - but (very silly of them) no link to it from inside the site (although Google managed to spider it out.) Weird. http://www.tatpumps.com/Pages/universal_electric_marine_pump.html -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24508|24482|2010-11-15 15:19:58|Denis Buggy|Re: Surf on not to surf?|----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Surf on not to surf? MARK thanks for the superb link have you come across any trimaran papers . regards denis I found a paper online about this that may be of interest/value?? http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/research_report_502_phase_1.pdf MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Hamill To: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:57:10PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > >> > >> > >> I only have helm experience with short-period steep "chop" because the > >> lake I sail is only 30 km long, and the longest fetch is only about > >> 10-15 km. In a 35-50 kt wind, there are some very steep 6 footers > >> with maybe 20 feet between peaks. The boat was a 23 foot Grampian, > >> sleeps 5 people, but only 4.5 feet of headroom in most of it. On a > >> 23 foot boat that was more excitement then I needed. Had the same > >> experience as Ben, came out of a wind-shadow suddenly, then could not > >> leave the helm. There were times the troughs seemed to be just the > >> shape of the boat, the boat would drop into the hole between waves and > >> stop very suddenly, like a detente-ball dropping into its socket. > > > > Oh yeah... thanks for the reminder. I'll be sure to dream about it > > tonight. :))) > > > >> No water went below > >> but I was getting hit by slugs of 10-20 liters of water at a time > >> coming completely airborne over the boat, never touching the deck, and > >> hitting me square in the head and chest. 20 Liters is a lot of water > >> -- it felt like I was getting hit by a bantam hockey player. > > > > I recall that when reading one of the boats on nautical architecture - > > may have been Skenes, but I wouldn't swear to it - the calculated impact > > for a breaking wave is 3 tons per square foot (a quick Google search > > turns up an article from Popular Mechanics, which quotes 2.9 tons/ft^2 - > > close enough.) This would explain things like pilothouses being swept > > away and so on. Rough calculation, assuming I still remember my basic > > physics, says that you were stopping ~140lbs of impact with your chest. > > Not exactly what I'd call a good time. > > > > Didn't happen in the situation that I described, but I've sure seen > > those flying "chunks" of water you're talking about. By then, though, I > > had "Ulysses", so the doghouse stopped'em. > > > >> was very hairy. One would take off on a surf very quickly, only to > >> stop very suddenly in a trough. The stern kept trying to pass the > >> bow. > > > > Yep. For the first wave or two, until I figured out how to steer through > > it, that's exactly what it was like. > > > >> That boat has a relatively large > >> transom-hung rudder, but the surfing and short steep waves were > >> pitching the stern up so much at some points that it seemed that only > >> half of the usual length of rudder was in the water some times. In > >> any case, there were large variations in the degree of control offered > >> by the rudder. > > > > Again, I have to be grateful to the people who designed "Recessional" - > > she was an OSTAR boat, and I believe that the Dufour people had a hand > > in the original design. Whatever else happened during that time, the > > boat behaved impeccably and gave me all the control I needed. It really > > did feel like sailing in a dinghy: completely and instantly responsive > > to input from the tiller. > > > > As much as I love "Ulysses", what with the comfort aboard and the > > sea-kindliness... that's one thing that I truly miss about > > "Recessional". That, and the ability to do 4kt in a 5kt wind. Can't have > > it all, though. Darn it. > > > > > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24509|24482|2010-11-15 16:19:17|brentswain38|Re: Surf on not to surf?|What's your hurry? If you are in a big hurry , take a plane. Cruising is for relaxation , not record setting. I'd rather get there later, relaxed, and safely, than take such chances. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > I quote the sentence of Carlo Sciarrelli, when he designed the boat for the Italian Navy "Sagittario" partecipating to the OSTAR, skippered by Commander Franco Faggioni in 1972. The Italian Navy could not take any risk and safety was the first aim. > "I considered wrong for a boat designed to the single handed transatlantic race the attitude to plane. Big problem if the Sagittario, all alone, without brake, starts a surf at 18 - 20 knots. Unvoidably, the boat, I believe, without anybody at the helm would conclude in sharp deviation (extra steering?) which with the wind and wave corresponding to this situation, with only one man aboard, would provoke a situation which fears me only to think about"    > Fourty years have passed since, with such a boat you will never win, useless to race without possibility of winning, then the modern transatlantic racer are designed for planing. But they have brave athlets at the helm virtually always awake. Are you one of those? > Mauro >   > > --- On Sat, 11/13/10, wild_explorer wrote: > > From: wild_explorer > Subject: [origamiboats] Surf on not to surf? > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Saturday, November 13, 2010, 11:40 PM > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > Some sailboat's hulls (semi-displacement) able to surf and exceed the speed of displacement hull up to 2 times. Is it good or bad for ocean going boat? > > > > I read that it is good things when boat going downwind in strong wind and relatively low waves. But bad thing in high waves. Boat could surf from the top of the wave at high speed and slam into next wave. > > > > Does anybody have hands-on experience (or information) on this subject? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24510|24449|2010-11-15 16:25:28|brentswain38|Re: Pilothouse|Gord You have already paid for the plans. Send me your postal address and I'll send you the pilothouse drawings. May take a while, as I'm heading fore the bush shortly. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > Brent > I understand you have plans for a pilothouse. I built one for my 40', > but I'm not real impressed with how it looks and with it's weight. > What are you asking for the plans. Gord > On 10-Nov-10, at 1:47 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > Mark > > Yes I have plans for a pilot house and would be happy to help you > > get one together for Phsyche. > > Metal would be best, as pilothouses have been considered a weak spot > > in other materials . We could build it ashore, detail it, then put > > it on in a day. It could be done in aluminium. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" > > wrote: > > > > > > Brent: > > > Do you have plans for the pilothouse?? > > > I wanted to putt one on Psyche that I just purchased in CRiver. I > > do not have much experience welding and was wondering about making > > one out of solid fiberglass and/or epoxy coated plywood and then > > bolting it in place?? I am familiar with those materials. > > > I could also cut out all the steel or aluminum sheet and have it > > welded and then install but I was wondering if it might warp unless > > it was held in a form of some kind. > > > All thoughts appreciated. MarkH > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24511|24490|2010-11-15 16:27:41|brentswain38|Re: TAT pumps|Altho the hose will break down, with all that flexing and squishing, it may be a trick to remember for priming a regular pump. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 02:14:52PM -0000, ed_lithgow wrote: > > > > Also(and perhaps more commonly?)KA a peristaltic pump. Very common in > > lab and biomedical equipment requiring the movement of fluids, such as > > chromatography, dialysis, protein or DNA sequencers, etc... > > > > I think one advantage is the fluid isn't in contact with impellers, > > pistons etc and so doesn't get contaminated or sheared. > > Yep. No specific benefit in, say, a bilge pump, but could be very nice > in some other applications. > > > Volume delivered is limited though. > > 2100 GPH for their 220 series pump. It's not the world, but not too bad. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24512|24449|2010-11-15 16:37:07|Gord Schnell|Re: Pilothouse|Brent I mis-spoke....it's my dodger design that I don't like. We can talk when you get back. No rush. Gord On 15-Nov-10, at 1:25 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > Gord > You have already paid for the plans. Send me your postal address and > I'll send you the pilothouse drawings. May take a while, as I'm > heading fore the bush shortly. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > wrote: > > > > Brent > > I understand you have plans for a pilothouse. I built one for my > 40', > > but I'm not real impressed with how it looks and with it's weight. > > What are you asking for the plans. Gord > > On 10-Nov-10, at 1:47 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > Mark > > > Yes I have plans for a pilot house and would be happy to help you > > > get one together for Phsyche. > > > Metal would be best, as pilothouses have been considered a weak > spot > > > in other materials . We could build it ashore, detail it, then put > > > it on in a day. It could be done in aluminium. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Brent: > > > > Do you have plans for the pilothouse?? > > > > I wanted to putt one on Psyche that I just purchased in > CRiver. I > > > do not have much experience welding and was wondering about making > > > one out of solid fiberglass and/or epoxy coated plywood and then > > > bolting it in place?? I am familiar with those materials. > > > > I could also cut out all the steel or aluminum sheet and have it > > > welded and then install but I was wondering if it might warp > unless > > > it was held in a form of some kind. > > > > All thoughts appreciated. MarkH > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24516|17643|2010-11-15 18:45:41|Ben Okopnik|Re: Boat thieves|On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 06:18:31PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > If its tires routinely had no air, until one was certain no boats were > being stolen from, that might be called overly cautious. Preemptive theft prevention, that would be. And crimping their valve inserts just a tiny bit - enough for it to leak down every few hours - would be a pleasant but firm warning. I was talking to a sailor whose dinghy had disappeared while we was at a small island in the Pacific. Stupid, really: the islanders wouldn't have taken it, and out of the very small number of boats in the harbor, most of the crews had known each other for quite a while. The one French boat that kept off by itself got, um, inspected the next time the owner was on shore - and the forepeak had three deflated dinghies in it, including the stolen one. They took the dinghy off, then dragged the boat outside the reef and let it float away. Justice, island style. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24517|24490|2010-11-15 21:09:50|David Frantz|Re: TAT pumps|Saline solutions, water and surfactants. Different pumps and different volumes. For the most part the volumes are extremely small but in a couple of apps transfers take place between rather large tanks. I can't go into the specifics of course but this should give you an idea. The thing that I don't like about these pumps is that the hoses don't last very long at all. Some of the heads are more reliable than others but the heads can be very choosy with respect to the correct hose; even then the heads don't last for ever. Sealing of the hose can be a problem when your supply has a positive head. As to uses on boats maybe I should modify my thoughts a bit. I don't really see peristaltic pumps as high pressure device. This leads me to believe they would not be very useful for reverse osmosis systems requiring high pressures. Because of the impact on the hose I would be very reluctant to use them to pump fuels to feed an engine. However the more I think about it the pumps might have a niche or two aboard a boat. Especially if the use is intermittent. One would be for the use of transfer and pumping of water. Another would be for the transfer of fuels from one storage location to another as long as the process was monitored. One would have to weigh the benefits against the issue of carrying extra heads and hose and possibly the need to tinker more than with other solutions. You would have to carry parts too, as the likely hood that you will find the right components on a cruise are extremely thin. About that water, such a pump wired up to work on demand might be a good way to handle potable water on a boat given proper hose. The hose is would be easy to keep clean or replace. The concept behind the pumps is very simple which is always good aboard a boat. The simplicity means one could build ones own or repair if one had access to the required tooling. The simplicity thing is another issue, many of the smaller peristaltic pumps I have experience with have controls that are well, wanting, while others come with an on/off switch. Ask me which are more reliable. On 11/15/10 2:32 PM000, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 09:39:40AM -0500, David Frantz wrote: >> We use a lot of peristaltic pumps at work. I'm not to sure that I >> could reccomend them for a boat. They are fiddly and you need to >> replace the hoses often. > Ah. Well, that might be a reason. Out of curiosity, what are you > pumping? What kind of flow rates? > > | 24518|24490|2010-11-15 21:19:58|David Frantz|Re: TAT pumps|Sometimes you have to put with fiddly to get the other benefits that come with the pumps. Cleanliness is one big benefit. You may find yours self needing to transfer fluids with a clean hose every time you reach for the pump. In some applications you would never see hose wear as you would never reuse it. On the flips side modern farms handle some really nasty stuff where the pumps might reduce personal exposure. It also should be noted that you will find hydraulic pumps on just about every farm, these are much less fiddly than most other pumps. On 11/15/10 2:51 PM000, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 09:39:40AM -0500, David Frantz wrote: >> We use a lot of peristaltic pumps at work. I'm not to sure that I >> could reccomend them for a boat. They are fiddly and you need to >> replace the hoses often. > Somethign else occurs to me: someone mentioned that they were used on > farm equipment. I don't think that would happen if they were either > unreliable or fiddly. > > It seems that they actually do have a bilge pump - but (very silly of > them) no link to it from inside the site (although Google managed to > spider it out.) Weird. > > http://www.tatpumps.com/Pages/universal_electric_marine_pump.html > > > | 24519|24490|2010-11-15 22:53:23|Ben Okopnik|Re: TAT pumps|On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 09:09:40PM -0500, David Frantz wrote: > Saline solutions, water and surfactants. Different pumps and > different volumes. For the most part the volumes are extremely small > but in a couple of apps transfers take place between rather large > tanks. I can't go into the specifics of course but this should give > you an idea. Thanks, it does. It may well be that the small volumes you're dealing with and the requirements - I'm guessing medical, or something the like - make dealing with them a rather fiddly business. On that score, what would you say is the most reliable type of pump that you use? > The thing that I don't like about these pumps is that the hoses don't > last very long at all. Some of the heads are more reliable than > others but the heads can be very choosy with respect to the correct > hose; even then the heads don't last for ever. Sealing of the hose can > be a problem when your supply has a positive head. Interesting. Another quick Google search brings up a review from a vintner who uses peristaltic pumps to move wine around the winery - he prefers these to the other two types of pumps used in that business. He reports replacing the tubes annually, just as a preventative measure (this is in an application that moves thousands of gallons) and reports that peristaltics are much more durable than the other two types (rotary lobe and progressing cavity); he specifically mentions vineyard staples, trellis cross-arms, and hose clamps - which damage the latter two types but not the peristaltic. http://www.winebusiness.com/wbm/?go=getArticle&dataId=69217 "In particular, the design can pump any liquid and just about any semi-solid that will physically fit into the inlet. This includes wine and juice of course, as well as must and destemmed berries, but also pomace (marc) and whole clusters." Hmm, chewing chunks. Sounds like a boat environment. :) > As to uses on boats maybe I should modify my thoughts a bit. I don't > really see peristaltic pumps as high pressure device. This leads me to > believe they would not be very useful for reverse osmosis systems > requiring high pressures. Well, there aren't too many pump types that can do that job. That's pretty specialized. > About that water, such a pump wired up to work on demand might be a good > way to handle potable water on a boat given proper hose. The hose is > would be easy to keep clean or replace. > > The concept behind the pumps is very simple which is always good aboard > a boat. The simplicity means one could build ones own or repair if one > had access to the required tooling. The simplicity thing is another > issue, many of the smaller peristaltic pumps I have experience with have > controls that are well, wanting, while others come with an on/off > switch. Ask me which are more reliable. [grin] Just had that discussion on another list with regard to float switches. 99% of them are crap, but a friend of mine's been using one that he put together for a couple of bucks for over thirty years now, and the thing still works like a champ. (For those who are curious: regular on-off switch mounted in a plastic box, stainless spring pulls the toggle up and into the "on" position. A string tied to the toggle goes down into the bilge and is attached to a milk jug with some sand in it. When the jug floats, the pump goes on; when it sinks back down, it goes off. Simple and brilliant.) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24520|24449|2010-11-15 23:18:25|Gord Schnell|Re: Pilothouse|Thanks Brent...actually, it's the dodger is was meaning....I don't speaka da langage so goot. Are you off to do a little hunting, Brent. If so, good hunting! Gord On 15-Nov-10, at 1:25 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > Gord > You have already paid for the plans. Send me your postal address and > I'll send you the pilothouse drawings. May take a while, as I'm > heading fore the bush shortly. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > wrote: > > > > Brent > > I understand you have plans for a pilothouse. I built one for my > 40', > > but I'm not real impressed with how it looks and with it's weight. > > What are you asking for the plans. Gord > > On 10-Nov-10, at 1:47 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > Mark > > > Yes I have plans for a pilot house and would be happy to help you > > > get one together for Phsyche. > > > Metal would be best, as pilothouses have been considered a weak > spot > > > in other materials . We could build it ashore, detail it, then put > > > it on in a day. It could be done in aluminium. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Brent: > > > > Do you have plans for the pilothouse?? > > > > I wanted to putt one on Psyche that I just purchased in > CRiver. I > > > do not have much experience welding and was wondering about making > > > one out of solid fiberglass and/or epoxy coated plywood and then > > > bolting it in place?? I am familiar with those materials. > > > > I could also cut out all the steel or aluminum sheet and have it > > > welded and then install but I was wondering if it might warp > unless > > > it was held in a form of some kind. > > > > All thoughts appreciated. MarkH > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24521|24490|2010-11-15 23:32:51|pendleton999|Re: TAT pumps|The farm use I alluded to earlier was primarily fertilizer or other chemical distribution to each row unit of a corn planter or grain drill. There was one tube per row unit. They were cheap and simple. The tubes were cut extra long so when the tube in the pump wore out, you just pulled it off the nipple, cut off about a foot, and stuck it back on. These pumps might pump maybe 40 gallons an hour per tube max and usually much less. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > Sometimes you have to put with fiddly to get the other benefits that > come with the pumps. Cleanliness is one big benefit. You may find > yours self needing to transfer fluids with a clean hose every time you > reach for the pump. In some applications you would never see hose wear > as you would never reuse it. > > On the flips side modern farms handle some really nasty stuff where the > pumps might reduce personal exposure. It also should be noted that you > will find hydraulic pumps on just about every farm, these are much less > fiddly than most other pumps. > | 24522|17643|2010-11-15 23:44:25|kingsknight4life|Re: Boat thieves|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 06:18:31PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > If its tires routinely had no air, until one was certain no boats were > > being stolen from, that might be called overly cautious. > > Preemptive theft prevention, that would be. And crimping their valve > inserts just a tiny bit - enough for it to leak down every few hours - > would be a pleasant but firm warning. > > I was talking to a sailor whose dinghy had disappeared while we was at a > small island in the Pacific. Stupid, really: the islanders wouldn't have > taken it, and out of the very small number of boats in the harbor, most > of the crews had known each other for quite a while. The one French boat > that kept off by itself got, um, inspected the next time the owner was > on shore - and the forepeak had three deflated dinghies in it, including > the stolen one. > > They took the dinghy off, then dragged the boat outside the reef and let > it float away. Justice, island style. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > Great story. I think that was a very, just solution to that problem. The people thieving those dinghies were probably doing it for awhile and would have just on kept it doing it. Plus they were incredibly stupid and or arrogant to steal the dinghy under those circumstances and not expect to get caught. It is just too bad metal recyclers and boat thieves can`t be ``set adrift`` too. Rowland| 24523|24523|2010-11-16 04:31:14|Kim|At what point is the hull shape "locked"?|Hello all ... Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near the centerline. I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap back in! Thanks in advance for any advice! Cheers ... Kim. PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). ________________________________________________| 24524|24490|2010-11-16 12:05:13|wild_explorer|Re: TAT pumps|It could be reliable as long as you use good head, correct size of the hose and good hose material (silicone type). The trick is not to squeeze hose too much, but keep it tight. This pump might be an easy DIY project for large, relatively flexible rubber hose. Best of all, it could be done in big diameter and hand powered. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > The thing that I don't like about these pumps is that the hoses don't > > last very long at all. Some of the heads are more reliable than > > others but the heads can be very choosy with respect to the correct > > hose; even then the heads don't last for ever. Sealing of the hose can > > be a problem when your supply has a positive head. > > Interesting. Another quick Google search brings up a review from a > vintner who uses peristaltic pumps to move wine around the winery - he > prefers these to the other two types of pumps used in that business. He > reports replacing the tubes annually, just as a preventative measure > (this is in an application that moves thousands of gallons) and reports > that peristaltics are much more durable than the other two types (rotary > lobe and progressing cavity); he specifically mentions vineyard staples, > trellis cross-arms, and hose clamps - which damage the latter two types > but not the peristaltic. > | 24525|24490|2010-11-16 13:29:31|Ben Okopnik|Re: TAT pumps|On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 05:05:04PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > It could be reliable as long as you use good head, correct size of the > hose and good hose material (silicone type). The trick is not to > squeeze hose too much, but keep it tight. This pump might be an easy > DIY project for large, relatively flexible rubber hose. Best of all, > it could be done in big diameter and hand powered. Right - I was thinking about that aspect of it as well. You could build one from scratch reasonably easily and cheaply if you ended up needing a pump for something - or, if you're on some island, you could trade your knowledge and skills for stuff you need, and this is a nice bit of knowledge to have. Also, peristaltics are all about low speed motors, so hand-power is definitely an option. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24527|24527|2010-11-16 14:54:45|tinboat2010|TAT pump|The first concrete pump that I saw (back in the mid sixties) was one of these TAT pumps, it was about 6 feet in diameter. I can remember thinking, WTF, they're squeezing course grinding compound (concrete) through a rubber hose???? It was brand new, we were the first job that it was used on, and it broke down about halfway through the job, but not the hose the first time. Within 2 months the Redi-Mix company returned it because the pump part of the hose kept wearing out. (Duh!?!?!?!) TinBoat| 24528|24490|2010-11-16 16:18:05|wild_explorer|Re: TAT pumps|You just need to have 3 spokes/rollers for half_circle/arc (not 2 - like on that simplified picture). --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > Also, peristaltics are all about low speed motors, so > hand-power is definitely an option. > | 24529|24490|2010-11-16 16:45:04|Ben Okopnik|Re: TAT pumps|On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:18:04PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > You just need to have 3 spokes/rollers for half_circle/arc (not 2 - like on that simplified picture). Actually, there's a manufacturer of transfer pumps that uses one - they probably use a full circle plus an overlap. They claim that it increases the life of the tube and is more efficient. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24530|24449|2010-11-16 17:39:34|brentswain38|Re: Pilothouse|With the pilothouse and inside steering, I find no need for a dodger. There appears to be no such thing as a good looking dodger. I haven't seen any. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > Thanks Brent...actually, it's the dodger is was meaning....I don't > speaka da langage so goot. Are you off to do a little hunting, Brent. > If so, good hunting! > Gord > > On 15-Nov-10, at 1:25 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > Gord > > You have already paid for the plans. Send me your postal address and > > I'll send you the pilothouse drawings. May take a while, as I'm > > heading fore the bush shortly. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > > wrote: > > > > > > Brent > > > I understand you have plans for a pilothouse. I built one for my > > 40', > > > but I'm not real impressed with how it looks and with it's weight. > > > What are you asking for the plans. Gord > > > On 10-Nov-10, at 1:47 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > > > Mark > > > > Yes I have plans for a pilot house and would be happy to help you > > > > get one together for Phsyche. > > > > Metal would be best, as pilothouses have been considered a weak > > spot > > > > in other materials . We could build it ashore, detail it, then put > > > > it on in a day. It could be done in aluminium. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Brent: > > > > > Do you have plans for the pilothouse?? > > > > > I wanted to putt one on Psyche that I just purchased in > > CRiver. I > > > > do not have much experience welding and was wondering about making > > > > one out of solid fiberglass and/or epoxy coated plywood and then > > > > bolting it in place?? I am familiar with those materials. > > > > > I could also cut out all the steel or aluminum sheet and have it > > > > welded and then install but I was wondering if it might warp > > unless > > > > it was held in a form of some kind. > > > > > All thoughts appreciated. MarkH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24531|24523|2010-11-16 17:42:49|brentswain38|Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"?|Once all the decks are on ,it is locked. We once tried to change it after all the decks were on, and ended up breaking the handle off a 3 ton come along, without moving it a sixteenth of an inch. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hello all ... > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near the centerline. > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap back in! > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). > ________________________________________________ > | 24532|24523|2010-11-17 10:16:35|Matt Malone|Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"?|That makes sense. Thin sheet structures gain stiffness by curvature, yes, but also connectedness. The connectedness allows shear loads to be transferred from one panel to the next. Try it with a standard 8-flap cardboard box (4 flaps on the bottom, 4 on the top). Close the bottom well, with tape. Fold the top shut but do not tape it. Deform the box, and the two top flaps will slide laterally relative to one another. This is because no shear force can be transferred from one to the other, so they move. Place some tape over the boundary between the flaps on the top, and suddenly the shape of the box is locked. From the description of what you say though, the doghouse and cockpit are not in. So you still have free edges of deck sheets. To save yourself some tiny deformation of the hull, which might manifest itself as a little up and down, out of plane deflection in the deck edge where it is currently attached to nothing, leave the cross brace in for a moment. Once something is welded to the inner edge of the deck, something that is stiff in the up and down direction, like the cabin sides and cockpit sides, there is less possibility of this free-edge deflection. The reason is, tack-welding sheets at sharp angles (like 70-110 degrees) it is sort of like a lever. Every time one tacks in another sheet, essentially at right angles to the previous one, the first sheet is stiffened greatly by the in-plane stiffness of the second sheet. The small out-of-plane deflections of the second sheet are the only degree of freedom left. The first sheet has very little mechanical advantage over this degree of freedom (like a really short lever) but can cause largish deflections with tremendous forces. The lever works both ways though, the largish out of plane deflections of the second sheet's free edge have a tremendous mechanical advantage over the rest of the hull. Forcing that free edge straight takes a relatively small force through a largish distance, and applies huge forces on the hull to deflect it very slightly, to put its shape back to the deck-flat shape when the brace was in. Therefore, when Brent was pulling inside the hull, with the decks on, he was working at the hard end of the lever. Flattening the decks by hand, while tacking in the cockpit sides and cabin sides will not be as hard as deforming the hull, but might be more force than one can apply with one hand while using the welder in the other. Leaving that brace in until one has turned the second angle, on the deck, to the cockpit sides and cabin sides, is like putting a lever on lever. Not only is the hull more rigidly held, the deck free edge is no longer free and can't buckle out of plane. Lastly, forcing the now free edge of the cockpit sides and cabin sides right (assuming the brace is removed) may not be necessary, and will be far easier because you are taking advantage of the mechanical advantage of the lever *squared*. This is likely too fine of a distinction for most. One more come-along will solve a lot of problems, but I like things to line up like they are supposed to, without having doubts of where that deflection is coming from. I also feel this leads to a design with the minimum of built-in stress which just makes it stronger relative to outside forces. So I would leave the brace in for now. For practicality reasons, the entire dog house or cockpit might be constructed as a unit, not on the boat, say in a garage, and then lifted into place as a unit. I would leave the brace in until it is tacked down, just to keep the deck sheets as flat as the day you tacked them down, and avoid uncertainty later. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:42:39 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"? Once all the decks are on ,it is locked. We once tried to change it after all the decks were on, and ended up breaking the handle off a 3 ton come along, without moving it a sixteenth of an inch. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hello all ... > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near the centerline. > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap back in! > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). > ________________________________________________ > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24533|24523|2010-11-17 12:46:33|Matt Malone|Simplicity of the Brent boat method|Looking at Kim's boat reminds me again, and makes me giggle, at how simple Brent has made it to make a steel boat with a curved displacing hull shape. Matt > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near the centerline. > > > > > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > > > > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > > > > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap back in! > > > > > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > Kim. > > > > > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). > > > ________________________________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24534|24534|2010-11-17 14:12:20|Ben Okopnik|Drill and tap sizes|I *hate* looking this stuff up every time (used to remember it all, at least for the common US sizes, but... memory's not what it used to be.) Here's a really nice one-page chart that I found - I'm printing the sucker out and keeping it with my reference books. http://academic.evergreen.edu/projects/biophysics/technotes/fabric/fraction.pdf -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24535|24523|2010-11-17 15:14:08|brentswain38|Re: Simplicity of the Brent boat method|Some builders, who have a huge financial stake in keeping the cost of building a steel boat high, get real pissed of at me, for making steel boats, and good gear, available to people without a large amount of cash to give them. I consider their contempt a compliment. My not so rich clientell are far more numerous than their rich clinetell. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Looking at Kim's boat reminds me again, and makes me giggle, at how simple Brent has made it to make a steel boat with a curved displacing hull shape. > > Matt > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > > > > > > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near the centerline. > > > > > > > > > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > > > > > > > > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > > > > > > > > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap back in! > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > > > > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > > > > > Kim. > > > > > > > > > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24536|24523|2010-11-17 15:31:06|brentswain38|Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"?|Well said. This explains why some say that a steel boat under 40 feet is impractical. They are simply incapable of comprehending the points you make. They look at a midship section in isolation, without comprehending the geometry of its connection to the rest of the structure, and its effect on rigidity and strength. Their calculations are based on the strength of a frame in isolation, which makes for grossly over engineering the structure,and ending up grossly overweight in smaller boats , and failing to take full advantage of the structural strengths of the curves and components' connections to each other , and the geometric principles involved. It has been suggested that I have a structural analysis done, by a guy who stated that a flat piece of aluminium has the same stiffness as a round or oval mast, as shape has no effect on stiffness , who stated that a mylar ruler, held in the hands, has the same bending characteristics as a longitudinal welded and contained inside a hull! This naivety amoung so called "Experts " explains why steel boat building has been held back for so long. If the bottoms of both cabinsides are the same shape, and the decks are pulled up to them, then the resulting shape is a foregone conclusion , predetermined by the shape of the components. The same applies to deck shapes, but for practical purposes, it's harder to fit the cockpit side decks in to a predetermined pattern than to simply level the hull and cut the last panel to fit. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > That makes sense. Thin sheet structures gain stiffness by curvature, yes, but also connectedness. The connectedness allows shear loads to be transferred from one panel to the next. Try it with a standard 8-flap cardboard box (4 flaps on the bottom, 4 on the top). Close the bottom well, with tape. Fold the top shut but do not tape it. Deform the box, and the two top flaps will slide laterally relative to one another. This is because no shear force can be transferred from one to the other, so they move. Place some tape over the boundary between the flaps on the top, and suddenly the shape of the box is locked. > > From the description of what you say though, the doghouse and cockpit are not in. So you still have free edges of deck sheets. To save yourself some tiny deformation of the hull, which might manifest itself as a little up and down, out of plane deflection in the deck edge where it is currently attached to nothing, leave the cross brace in for a moment. Once something is welded to the inner edge of the deck, something that is stiff in the up and down direction, like the cabin sides and cockpit sides, there is less possibility of this free-edge deflection. > > The reason is, tack-welding sheets at sharp angles (like 70-110 degrees) it is sort of like a lever. Every time one tacks in another sheet, essentially at right angles to the previous one, the first sheet is stiffened greatly by the in-plane stiffness of the second sheet. The small out-of-plane deflections of the second sheet are the only degree of freedom left. The first sheet has very little mechanical advantage over this degree of freedom (like a really short lever) but can cause largish deflections with tremendous forces. The lever works both ways though, the largish out of plane deflections of the second sheet's free edge have a tremendous mechanical advantage over the rest of the hull. Forcing that free edge straight takes a relatively small force through a largish distance, and applies huge forces on the hull to deflect it very slightly, to put its shape back to the deck-flat shape when the brace was in. > > Therefore, when Brent was pulling inside the hull, with the decks on, he was working at the hard end of the lever. > > Flattening the decks by hand, while tacking in the cockpit sides and cabin sides will not be as hard as deforming the hull, but might be more force than one can apply with one hand while using the welder in the other. Leaving that brace in until one has turned the second angle, on the deck, to the cockpit sides and cabin sides, is like putting a lever on lever. Not only is the hull more rigidly held, the deck free edge is no longer free and can't buckle out of plane. Lastly, forcing the now free edge of the cockpit sides and cabin sides right (assuming the brace is removed) may not be necessary, and will be far easier because you are taking advantage of the mechanical advantage of the lever *squared*. > > This is likely too fine of a distinction for most. One more come-along will solve a lot of problems, but I like things to line up like they are supposed to, without having doubts of where that deflection is coming from. I also feel this leads to a design with the minimum of built-in stress which just makes it stronger relative to outside forces. So I would leave the brace in for now. For practicality reasons, the entire dog house or cockpit might be constructed as a unit, not on the boat, say in a garage, and then lifted into place as a unit. I would leave the brace in until it is tacked down, just to keep the deck sheets as flat as the day you tacked them down, and avoid uncertainty later. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:42:39 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once all the decks are on ,it is locked. We once tried to change it after all the decks were on, and ended up breaking the handle off a 3 ton come along, without moving it a sixteenth of an inch. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near the centerline. > > > > > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > > > > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > > > > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap back in! > > > > > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > Kim. > > > > > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). > > > ________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24537|24523|2010-11-17 15:51:19|Kim|Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"?|Thanks for the information, Brent and Matt. The cockpit and cabin sides go in next, and I'll leave the diagonal winch in there for a while longer. (Hopefully I'll avoid breaking my neck the next time I trip over it! :-) ) I couldn't agree more that Brent's building method is utter simplicity itself. And it's fast - I've come a long way in the last 5 months of weekend-only work. Armed with Alex's video (which is absolutely essential!!) it really is as easy as painting-by-numbers! And I very definitely fall in to the "not so rich" category; but it's all very doable paying for it week-by-week as I go. Thanks again! Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > Hello all ... > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near the centerline. > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap back in! > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). ________________________________________________ | 24538|16860|2010-11-17 17:04:21|pynrc@aol.com|Spam|Hi, My email has been hacked, so I have changed my account. Please disregard anything coming form pynrc. Thanks, Richard. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24539|16860|2010-11-18 17:26:09|brentswain38|Spam|I have received emails saying "Confirm your account or it will be eliminated ." I smelled a rat when they asked for my password. When I contacted yahoo directly they said the only time they would ever ask for your password was when you first signed up. Anyone after that asking for your password was a scammer. Happened on Hotmail too. I have been getting spam from friends email addresses who have fallen for the scam. Never give your password after you have opened an account, regardless of the excuse. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, pynrc@... wrote: > > Hi, My email has been hacked, so I have changed my account. Please > disregard anything coming form pynrc. Thanks, Richard. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24540|17643|2010-11-18 17:29:12|brentswain38|Re: Boat thieves|One could always look in the back window and check for any marine hardware there, take a picture of it and post the picture on youtube and marine chatlines, along with license plate numbers, descriptions , local, and send a copy to the cops. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 06:18:31PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > If its tires routinely had no air, until one was certain no boats were > > being stolen from, that might be called overly cautious. > > Preemptive theft prevention, that would be. And crimping their valve > inserts just a tiny bit - enough for it to leak down every few hours - > would be a pleasant but firm warning. > > I was talking to a sailor whose dinghy had disappeared while we was at a > small island in the Pacific. Stupid, really: the islanders wouldn't have > taken it, and out of the very small number of boats in the harbor, most > of the crews had known each other for quite a while. The one French boat > that kept off by itself got, um, inspected the next time the owner was > on shore - and the forepeak had three deflated dinghies in it, including > the stolen one. > > They took the dinghy off, then dragged the boat outside the reef and let > it float away. Justice, island style. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24541|16860|2010-11-18 22:14:26|martin demers|Re: Spam|we have received an e-mail from "apparently" UPS asking to pay duty that had not been paid on a package destined to us, and they would not ship the package before we pay. But we were not waiting for any package... they joined a UPS tracking number wich didn't look any UPS number that I have seen before... STAY ALERT... To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:25:59 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re:Spam I have received emails saying "Confirm your account or it will be eliminated ." I smelled a rat when they asked for my password. When I contacted yahoo directly they said the only time they would ever ask for your password was when you first signed up. Anyone after that asking for your password was a scammer. Happened on Hotmail too. I have been getting spam from friends email addresses who have fallen for the scam. Never give your password after you have opened an account, regardless of the excuse. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, pynrc@... wrote: > > Hi, My email has been hacked, so I have changed my account. Please > disregard anything coming form pynrc. Thanks, Richard. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24542|16860|2010-11-18 22:41:11|Lindsay|Re: Spam|I have been inundated in the last two days with this rubbish !! ---------------------------------------------- " You have added a_f_restucci@... as a new email address for your PayPal account. If you did not authorize this change or if you need assistance with your account, please login to your account now: http://189-19-59-162.dsl.telesp.net.br/phpMyAdmin/config/nz/review/dept/paypal/ Sincerely, PayPal ____________________________ Please do not reply to this email. This mailbox is not monitored and you will not receive a response. For assistance, log in to your PayPal account and click the Help link in the top right corner of any PayPal page. HIBCPYHVQJYUJHIQMSQSOYDQNOIETTBZFCTZRG" ----- Original Message ----- From: "martin demers" To: Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 4:14 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re:Spam > > we have received an e-mail from "apparently" UPS asking to pay duty that > had not been paid on a package destined to us, and they would not ship the > package before we pay. But we were not waiting for any package... they > joined a UPS tracking number wich didn't look any UPS number that I have > seen before... STAY ALERT... > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:25:59 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re:Spam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have received emails saying "Confirm your account or it will be > eliminated ." I smelled a rat when they asked for my password. > > When I contacted yahoo directly they said the only time they would ever > ask for your password was when you first signed up. Anyone after that > asking for your password was a scammer. > > Happened on Hotmail too. I have been getting spam from friends email > addresses who have fallen for the scam. > > Never give your password after you have opened an account, regardless of > the excuse. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, pynrc@... wrote: > >> > >> Hi, My email has been hacked, so I have changed my account. Please > >> disregard anything coming form pynrc. Thanks, Richard. > >> > >> > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24543|24449|2010-11-18 23:56:33|Gord Schnell|Re: Pilothouse|Thanks Brent.....I'm sure you are right! I'll just leave the dodger on the floor where I set it . Thanks Gord On 16-Nov-10, at 2:39 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > With the pilothouse and inside steering, I find no need for a > dodger. There appears to be no such thing as a good looking dodger. > I haven't seen any. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > wrote: > > > > Thanks Brent...actually, it's the dodger is was meaning....I don't > > speaka da langage so goot. Are you off to do a little hunting, > Brent. > > If so, good hunting! > > Gord > > > > On 15-Nov-10, at 1:25 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > Gord > > > You have already paid for the plans. Send me your postal address > and > > > I'll send you the pilothouse drawings. May take a while, as I'm > > > heading fore the bush shortly. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Brent > > > > I understand you have plans for a pilothouse. I built one for my > > > 40', > > > > but I'm not real impressed with how it looks and with it's > weight. > > > > What are you asking for the plans. Gord > > > > On 10-Nov-10, at 1:47 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > Yes I have plans for a pilot house and would be happy to > help you > > > > > get one together for Phsyche. > > > > > Metal would be best, as pilothouses have been considered a > weak > > > spot > > > > > in other materials . We could build it ashore, detail it, > then put > > > > > it on in a day. It could be done in aluminium. > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent: > > > > > > Do you have plans for the pilothouse?? > > > > > > I wanted to putt one on Psyche that I just purchased in > > > CRiver. I > > > > > do not have much experience welding and was wondering about > making > > > > > one out of solid fiberglass and/or epoxy coated plywood and > then > > > > > bolting it in place?? I am familiar with those materials. > > > > > > I could also cut out all the steel or aluminum sheet and > have it > > > > > welded and then install but I was wondering if it might warp > > > unless > > > > > it was held in a form of some kind. > > > > > > All thoughts appreciated. MarkH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24544|16860|2010-11-19 16:26:52|brentswain38|Spam|Some suckers will send the money anyway, hoping to receive a package. On sucker in a hundred is enough to make them rich. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > we have received an e-mail from "apparently" UPS asking to pay duty that had not been paid on a package destined to us, and they would not ship the package before we pay. But we were not waiting for any package... they joined a UPS tracking number wich didn't look any UPS number that I have seen before... STAY ALERT... > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:25:59 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re:Spam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have received emails saying "Confirm your account or it will be eliminated ." I smelled a rat when they asked for my password. > > When I contacted yahoo directly they said the only time they would ever ask for your password was when you first signed up. Anyone after that asking for your password was a scammer. > > Happened on Hotmail too. I have been getting spam from friends email addresses who have fallen for the scam. > > Never give your password after you have opened an account, regardless of the excuse. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, pynrc@ wrote: > > > > > > Hi, My email has been hacked, so I have changed my account. Please > > > disregard anything coming form pynrc. Thanks, Richard. > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24545|24449|2010-11-19 16:28:28|brentswain38|Re: Pilothouse|Will we see you out cruising this coming summer? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > Thanks Brent.....I'm sure you are right! I'll just leave the dodger on > the floor where I set it . > Thanks > Gord > > On 16-Nov-10, at 2:39 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > With the pilothouse and inside steering, I find no need for a > > dodger. There appears to be no such thing as a good looking dodger. > > I haven't seen any. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Brent...actually, it's the dodger is was meaning....I don't > > > speaka da langage so goot. Are you off to do a little hunting, > > Brent. > > > If so, good hunting! > > > Gord > > > > > > On 15-Nov-10, at 1:25 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > > > Gord > > > > You have already paid for the plans. Send me your postal address > > and > > > > I'll send you the pilothouse drawings. May take a while, as I'm > > > > heading fore the bush shortly. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Brent > > > > > I understand you have plans for a pilothouse. I built one for my > > > > 40', > > > > > but I'm not real impressed with how it looks and with it's > > weight. > > > > > What are you asking for the plans. Gord > > > > > On 10-Nov-10, at 1:47 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > Yes I have plans for a pilot house and would be happy to > > help you > > > > > > get one together for Phsyche. > > > > > > Metal would be best, as pilothouses have been considered a > > weak > > > > spot > > > > > > in other materials . We could build it ashore, detail it, > > then put > > > > > > it on in a day. It could be done in aluminium. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent: > > > > > > > Do you have plans for the pilothouse?? > > > > > > > I wanted to putt one on Psyche that I just purchased in > > > > CRiver. I > > > > > > do not have much experience welding and was wondering about > > making > > > > > > one out of solid fiberglass and/or epoxy coated plywood and > > then > > > > > > bolting it in place?? I am familiar with those materials. > > > > > > > I could also cut out all the steel or aluminum sheet and > > have it > > > > > > welded and then install but I was wondering if it might warp > > > > unless > > > > > > it was held in a form of some kind. > > > > > > > All thoughts appreciated. MarkH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24546|24449|2010-11-19 22:29:11|gschnell@shaw.ca|Re: Pilothouse|You will. Thought we'd make it this summer but had a crisis (death) in the family. Gord Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network. Envoy� sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le r�seau de Bell. -----Original Message----- From: brentswain38 Sender: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 21:28:16 To: Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Pilothouse Will we see you out cruising this coming summer? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > Thanks Brent.....I'm sure you are right! I'll just leave the dodger on > the floor where I set it . > Thanks > Gord > > On 16-Nov-10, at 2:39 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > With the pilothouse and inside steering, I find no need for a > > dodger. There appears to be no such thing as a good looking dodger. > > I haven't seen any. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Brent...actually, it's the dodger is was meaning....I don't > > > speaka da langage so goot. Are you off to do a little hunting, > > Brent. > > > If so, good hunting! > > > Gord > > > > > > On 15-Nov-10, at 1:25 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > > > Gord > > > > You have already paid for the plans. Send me your postal address > > and > > > > I'll send you the pilothouse drawings. May take a while, as I'm > > > > heading fore the bush shortly. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Brent > > > > > I understand you have plans for a pilothouse. I built one for my > > > > 40', > > > > > but I'm not real impressed with how it looks and with it's > > weight. > > > > > What are you asking for the plans. Gord > > > > > On 10-Nov-10, at 1:47 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > Yes I have plans for a pilot house and would be happy to > > help you > > > > > > get one together for Phsyche. > > > > > > Metal would be best, as pilothouses have been considered a > > weak > > > > spot > > > > > > in other materials . We could build it ashore, detail it, > > then put > > > > > > it on in a day. It could be done in aluminium. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent: > > > > > > > Do you have plans for the pilothouse?? > > > > > > > I wanted to putt one on Psyche that I just purchased in > > > > CRiver. I > > > > > > do not have much experience welding and was wondering about > > making > > > > > > one out of solid fiberglass and/or epoxy coated plywood and > > then > > > > > > bolting it in place?? I am familiar with those materials. > > > > > > > I could also cut out all the steel or aluminum sheet and > > have it > > > > > > welded and then install but I was wondering if it might warp > > > > unless > > > > > > it was held in a form of some kind. > > > > > > > All thoughts appreciated. MarkH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24547|24449|2010-11-20 07:09:42|boatwayupnorth|Re: Pilothouse|And will we see some (lots of) pictures soon? Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, gschnell@... wrote: > > You will. Thought we'd make it this summer but had a crisis (death) in the family. Gord > Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network. > Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau de Bell. > > -----Original Message----- > From: brentswain38 > Sender: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 21:28:16 > To: > Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Pilothouse > > Will we see you out cruising this coming summer? > | 24548|24449|2010-11-20 12:49:52|Gord Schnell|Re: Pilothouse|Walter What kind of pics would you like? She is in a shed with restrictive clearance around (making it difficult to get far enough away to shoot the hull, decks etc.) However, this mornings snow may have "removed" the problem of the shed......just heading out to see what has happened. Gord On 20-Nov-10, at 4:09 AM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > > > And will we see some (lots of) pictures soon? > Walter > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, gschnell@... wrote: > > > > You will. Thought we'd make it this summer but had a crisis > (death) in the family. Gord > > Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network. > > Envoy� sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le r�seau > de Bell. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: brentswain38 > > Sender: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 21:28:16 > > To: > > Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Pilothouse > > > > Will we see you out cruising this coming summer? > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24549|17643|2010-11-20 17:45:09|brentswain38|Re: Boat thieves|It appears there was an ownership dispute in his case. "This is what we do" was a bad joice of words " as was the method of settlement. . "Good kids," otherwise, I've been told. Apologies for the misunderstanding, which they helped along. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 06:18:31PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > If its tires routinely had no air, until one was certain no boats were > > being stolen from, that might be called overly cautious. > > Preemptive theft prevention, that would be. And crimping their valve > inserts just a tiny bit - enough for it to leak down every few hours - > would be a pleasant but firm warning. > > I was talking to a sailor whose dinghy had disappeared while we was at a > small island in the Pacific. Stupid, really: the islanders wouldn't have > taken it, and out of the very small number of boats in the harbor, most > of the crews had known each other for quite a while. The one French boat > that kept off by itself got, um, inspected the next time the owner was > on shore - and the forepeak had three deflated dinghies in it, including > the stolen one. > > They took the dinghy off, then dragged the boat outside the reef and let > it float away. Justice, island style. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24550|24550|2010-11-21 15:41:55|sunbear|Diesel opinion sought|Hi all: I opened up the engine of Psyche--having been told that it had filled with water siphoning from the wet system--I have attached two photos in the files "PSYCHE-Hamill" I haven't tried to move the pistons yet. The one clyinder was filled with some glop that was partly solid. When this was removed the walls were good but the piston top was quite corroded--If I can move the pistons eventually does this corrosion mean that I should replace this piston?? Your thoughts would be appreciated. MarkH| 24551|24449|2010-11-21 16:36:13|boatwayupnorth|Re: Pilothouse|Gord: "However, this mornings snow may have "removed" the problem of the shed" That doesn't sound so good, hope all went better than expected. About the pictures - everything is of interest, of course. But if I can take a pick I would love to see a close up of how you welded the stanchions on the sheer pipe. Alex once wrote about a special grinding disc you used that made the transition almost invisible. And if I remember correctly you wrote some time ago that you welded an I-beam into the pilothouse for lifting the engine in and out. That sounds like a great idea, if you have a picture of that I would be interested. And if you have some pics from the inside of the hull before insulating that would be great, too. No haste, but don't forget to upload it all before you are of and away... Regards Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > Walter > What kind of pics would you like? She is in a shed with restrictive > clearance around (making it difficult to get far enough away to shoot > the hull, decks etc.) > However, this mornings snow may have "removed" the problem of the > shed......just heading out to see what has happened. > Gord > On 20-Nov-10, at 4:09 AM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > > | 24552|24550|2010-11-22 04:04:56|Denis Buggy|Re: Diesel opinion sought|dear Mark taking off the head and seeing crud is not the end of the world . soak the head in some oil --used oil is fine and leave soaking for a few days and then gently tap the valves with a wooden mallet until you get them moving and take your head apart and mark out on a heavy piece of cardboard holes for the valves as you should return the original valve to its guide and seat --YOU WILL HAVE TO LAP THE VALVE SEATS WITH VALVE GRINDING PASTE AS THE SURFACES MAY BE PITTED . clean head and take injectors apart and clean counting the exposed thread under the cap before you take them apart in order to return them to the same breaking pressure . that should do for your head -- now clean off the top of each piston fully and soak in kerosene all around the top of the piston . then get a wooden round fencing post which will just fit in the bore of your engine and starting with the worst piston hit the fencing post with a sledge . make sure the post has been cut flush and meets the top of the piston square -- this will allow you to move the piston without swelling the top of it when you get the piston down use a plastic abrade wheel which is used to remove rust or a wire brush on a drill and clean and oil the bore ---now you can unbolt the conrod and with a wooden brush handle drive the pistons out of the engine put a cloth or sock on the end of the conrod to keep it from damaging the bore while you are driving it out -- now remove rings doing only one piston at a time and clean the grooves and note the angle on each ring and they are marked top when new IT IS CRUCIAL TO RETURN EACH RING TO ITS ORIGINAL PISTON AND YOU MUST MAKE SURE TOP OF RING IS TOP OF RING WHEN FITTED then turn each gap on each ring opposite to the one above as you must avoid all the ring gaps being on one side of the piston . IF YOUR RINGS ARE CHROME OR YOU BORE IS CHROME AND IT IS PITTED THEY ARE SCRAP REPLACE PITTED BORE AND PITTED CHROME RINGS EVERYTHING MUST BE SPOTLESS AND BE COATED WITH CLEAN ENGINE OIL --- ALL BEARING SURFACES MUST ME FLOWING WITH OIL . THE TOP OF THE PISTON MUST BE CLEANED AND RUB DOWN WITH FINE SANDPAPER AS YOU CANNOT LEAVE AN EDGE ANYWHERE AS STRESS WILL USE AN EDGE TO FRACTURE THE PISTON . even though you have some corrosion it is not a big deal unless the height of the piston has been affected which is unlikely . dirt and lack of concentration are your only enemies when rebuilding an engine and all you need is a loan of a good manual for this engine and you should be fine however nothing beats an experienced friend to over-see you --- find one regards Denis Buggy -- Hi all: I opened up the engine of Psyche--having been told that it had filled with water siphoning from the wet system--I have attached two photos in the files "PSYCHE-Hamill" I haven't tried to move the pistons yet. The one clyinder was filled with some glop that was partly solid. When this was removed the walls were good but the piston top was quite corroded--If I can move the pistons eventually does this corrosion mean that I should replace this piston?? Your thoughts would be appreciated. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24553|24550|2010-11-22 11:46:54|Ben Okopnik|Re: Diesel opinion sought|On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 09:04:52AM -0000, Denis Buggy wrote: > > take injectors apart and clean counting the exposed thread under the > cap before you take them apart in order to return them to the same > breaking pressure . Nice trick! (and really good advice overall.) I'm filing that one away in my head for future reference. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24554|24449|2010-11-22 13:44:33|Gord Schnell|Re: Pilothouse|Walter The snow certainly "removed" the roof ... no surprise. I did have a secondary tarp beneath the roof trusses that was only attached at the main beam of the roof and weighted at the top of the walls on ropes (? complicated?) It was there to minimize the vacuum changes under the roof tarp in high winds (really works well). It funneled the snow to the outer walls and onto the floor....but I don't know how long that will last. As insurance, I threw tarps on the decks until I get the sealant into the port frames......waiting for the temperature to moderate. I'm not sure I ever took photos of the stanchion/sheer pipe joints....but basically, SS welding is really easy to achieve a clean smooth finish. Using a flexible polishing disk (I'll see if I can find one for the name/Part Number). just gently work your angle grinder around the joint to polish out the slight wave left after welding. It doesn't take long to get the "feel"...... very light pressure on the disk (to avoid heat stains) and never stop moving the disk. Walter, I have lots of photos, of all stages of the project, and I even have a PowerPoint slideshow that was designed to lead one thru the hull and deck construction. I certainly don't mind sharing it, but it will require some serious "storage space" somewhere accessible to the group. Ideas anyone. Gord On 21-Nov-10, at 1:36 PM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > Gord: > "However, this mornings snow may have "removed" the problem of the > shed" > That doesn't sound so good, hope all went better than expected. > About the pictures - everything is of interest, of course. But if I > can take a pick I would love to see a close up of how you welded the > stanchions on the sheer pipe. Alex once wrote about a special > grinding disc you used that made the transition almost invisible. > And if I remember correctly you wrote some time ago that you welded > an I-beam into the pilothouse for lifting the engine in and out. > That sounds like a great idea, if you have a picture of that I would > be interested. And if you have some pics from the inside of the hull > before insulating that would be great, too. No haste, but don't > forget to upload it all before you are of and away... > Regards > Walter > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > wrote: > > > > Walter > > What kind of pics would you like? She is in a shed with restrictive > > clearance around (making it difficult to get far enough away to > shoot > > the hull, decks etc.) > > However, this mornings snow may have "removed" the problem of the > > shed......just heading out to see what has happened. > > Gord > > On 20-Nov-10, at 4:09 AM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24555|24449|2010-11-23 03:34:17|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Pilothouse|Photos and slideshow would be appreciated.| 24556|24449|2010-11-23 12:45:21|Gord Schnell|Re: Pilothouse|Walter I managed to find one of the disks I used for "blending" the stanchion to "toe rail" (sheer pipe). It is made by United Abrasives Inc - SAIT and named (appropriately) SAITBLEND PN: A64F - Flexible. This particular one has a 7/8" hub and is a 4.5" diameter. Larger diameters and different hub sizes are available. Use a light touch to avoid overheating the contact area and causing "heat stain". Gord PS: Haven't found any pics showing a finished weld close up. On 21-Nov-10, at 1:36 PM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > Gord: > "However, this mornings snow may have "removed" the problem of the > shed" > That doesn't sound so good, hope all went better than expected. > About the pictures - everything is of interest, of course. But if I > can take a pick I would love to see a close up of how you welded the > stanchions on the sheer pipe. Alex once wrote about a special > grinding disc you used that made the transition almost invisible. > And if I remember correctly you wrote some time ago that you welded > an I-beam into the pilothouse for lifting the engine in and out. > That sounds like a great idea, if you have a picture of that I would > be interested. And if you have some pics from the inside of the hull > before insulating that would be great, too. No haste, but don't > forget to upload it all before you are of and away... > Regards > Walter > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > wrote: > > > > Walter > > What kind of pics would you like? She is in a shed with restrictive > > clearance around (making it difficult to get far enough away to > shoot > > the hull, decks etc.) > > However, this mornings snow may have "removed" the problem of the > > shed......just heading out to see what has happened. > > Gord > > On 20-Nov-10, at 4:09 AM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24557|24449|2010-11-23 12:48:03|Gord Schnell|Re: Pilothouse|I see if I can find a day to "package it all up" and post it somewhere accessible. Gord On 23-Nov-10, at 12:34 AM, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > Photos and slideshow would be appreciated. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24558|24449|2010-11-23 14:57:44|boatwayupnorth|Re: Pilothouse|And I thought our winters are harsh! Makes you think of how the boat will behave when you are on the water without a shed to protect you. And makes one dream of warmer climates! I found the link to the polishing discs you used: http://unitedabrasives.com/catalog.php?page=39 At least that's what was posted in this thread: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/message/1493 About the pics, can't you upload it all in the Photos-section? I have no idea how much work this is, have never done it. If Yahoo doesn't accept Power point, maybe you could upload it to Google docs (https://docs.google.com/)? Maybe Ben or somebody else with more computer insight than me (pretty much everybody) has some better ideas? Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > Walter > The snow certainly "removed" the roof ... no surprise. I did have a > secondary tarp beneath the roof trusses that was only attached at the > main beam of the roof and weighted at the top of the walls on ropes (? > complicated?) It was there to minimize the vacuum changes under the > roof tarp in high winds (really works well). It funneled the snow to > the outer walls and onto the floor....but I don't know how long that > will last. As insurance, I threw tarps on the decks until I get the > sealant into the port frames......waiting for the temperature to > moderate. > > I'm not sure I ever took photos of the stanchion/sheer pipe > joints....but basically, SS welding is really easy to achieve a clean > smooth finish. Using a flexible polishing disk (I'll see if I can find > one for the name/Part Number). just gently work your angle grinder > around the joint to polish out the slight wave left after welding. It > doesn't take long to get the "feel"...... very light pressure on the > disk (to avoid heat stains) and never stop moving the disk. > > Walter, I have lots of photos, of all stages of the project, and I > even have a PowerPoint slideshow that was designed to lead one thru > the hull and deck construction. I certainly don't mind sharing it, but > it will require some serious "storage space" somewhere accessible to > the group. > Ideas anyone. > Gord > > On 21-Nov-10, at 1:36 PM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > > > Gord: > > "However, this mornings snow may have "removed" the problem of the > > shed" > > That doesn't sound so good, hope all went better than expected. > > About the pictures - everything is of interest, of course. But if I > > can take a pick I would love to see a close up of how you welded the > > stanchions on the sheer pipe. Alex once wrote about a special > > grinding disc you used that made the transition almost invisible. > > And if I remember correctly you wrote some time ago that you welded > > an I-beam into the pilothouse for lifting the engine in and out. > > That sounds like a great idea, if you have a picture of that I would > > be interested. And if you have some pics from the inside of the hull > > before insulating that would be great, too. No haste, but don't > > forget to upload it all before you are of and away... > > Regards > > Walter > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > > wrote: > > > > > > Walter > > > What kind of pics would you like? She is in a shed with restrictive > > > clearance around (making it difficult to get far enough away to > > shoot > > > the hull, decks etc.) > > > However, this mornings snow may have "removed" the problem of the > > > shed......just heading out to see what has happened. > > > Gord > > > On 20-Nov-10, at 4:09 AM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24559|24449|2010-11-23 17:58:41|gschnell@shaw.ca|Re: Pilothouse|Not that it can't be done or that I can't do it, it's about the size of the files, the upload time and finding a "house" big enough to accomodate. I'll work on it tonite. Gord Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network. Envoy� sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le r�seau de Bell. -----Original Message----- From: boatwayupnorth Sender: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:57:34 To: Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Pilothouse And I thought our winters are harsh! Makes you think of how the boat will behave when you are on the water without a shed to protect you. And makes one dream of warmer climates! I found the link to the polishing discs you used: http://unitedabrasives.com/catalog.php?page=39 At least that's what was posted in this thread: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/message/1493 About the pics, can't you upload it all in the Photos-section? I have no idea how much work this is, have never done it. If Yahoo doesn't accept Power point, maybe you could upload it to Google docs (https://docs.google.com/)? Maybe Ben or somebody else with more computer insight than me (pretty much everybody) has some better ideas? Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > Walter > The snow certainly "removed" the roof ... no surprise. I did have a > secondary tarp beneath the roof trusses that was only attached at the > main beam of the roof and weighted at the top of the walls on ropes (? > complicated?) It was there to minimize the vacuum changes under the > roof tarp in high winds (really works well). It funneled the snow to > the outer walls and onto the floor....but I don't know how long that > will last. As insurance, I threw tarps on the decks until I get the > sealant into the port frames......waiting for the temperature to > moderate. > > I'm not sure I ever took photos of the stanchion/sheer pipe > joints....but basically, SS welding is really easy to achieve a clean > smooth finish. Using a flexible polishing disk (I'll see if I can find > one for the name/Part Number). just gently work your angle grinder > around the joint to polish out the slight wave left after welding. It > doesn't take long to get the "feel"...... very light pressure on the > disk (to avoid heat stains) and never stop moving the disk. > > Walter, I have lots of photos, of all stages of the project, and I > even have a PowerPoint slideshow that was designed to lead one thru > the hull and deck construction. I certainly don't mind sharing it, but > it will require some serious "storage space" somewhere accessible to > the group. > Ideas anyone. > Gord > > On 21-Nov-10, at 1:36 PM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > > > Gord: > > "However, this mornings snow may have "removed" the problem of the > > shed" > > That doesn't sound so good, hope all went better than expected. > > About the pictures - everything is of interest, of course. But if I > > can take a pick I would love to see a close up of how you welded the > > stanchions on the sheer pipe. Alex once wrote about a special > > grinding disc you used that made the transition almost invisible. > > And if I remember correctly you wrote some time ago that you welded > > an I-beam into the pilothouse for lifting the engine in and out. > > That sounds like a great idea, if you have a picture of that I would > > be interested. And if you have some pics from the inside of the hull > > before insulating that would be great, too. No haste, but don't > > forget to upload it all before you are of and away... > > Regards > > Walter > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > > wrote: > > > > > > Walter > > > What kind of pics would you like? She is in a shed with restrictive > > > clearance around (making it difficult to get far enough away to > > shoot > > > the hull, decks etc.) > > > However, this mornings snow may have "removed" the problem of the > > > shed......just heading out to see what has happened. > > > Gord > > > On 20-Nov-10, at 4:09 AM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24560|24560|2010-11-23 20:15:29|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|winter cold storage|this came to my mind now that winter is close here in Canada; is it bad to store our inflatables , liferaft and running riggings inside the sailboat during winter ? Martin.| 24561|22|2010-11-24 13:22:13|origamiboats@yahoogroups.com|New file uploaded to origamiboats |Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the origamiboats group. File : /WithAmazingGrace1A.ppt Uploaded by : withamazinggrace Description : Step 1 - Hull Construction You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/WithAmazingGrace1A.ppt To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html Regards, withamazinggrace | 24562|22|2010-11-24 13:24:32|origamiboats@yahoogroups.com|New file uploaded to origamiboats |Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the origamiboats group. File : /BS40_Construction/WithAmazingGrace1A.ppt Uploaded by : withamazinggrace Description : Hull construction You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/BS40_Construction/WithAmazingGrace1A.ppt To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html Regards, withamazinggrace | 24563|24550|2010-11-24 14:17:23|Denis Buggy|Re: Diesel opinion sought|DEAR BEN re your file on injectors --- if you are on a desert island --- broke with no hope of help --you can do the following - get a piece of hardwood drill 2 holes only slightly larger than the needle of the injector nozzle --then wrap thick end of the needle with electrical tape and put in to chuck of drill and pour a little bit of fine valve grinding paste with some water and press the point onto the drilled out hole up and down while spinning -- the point will make a mould for itself and the grinding paste will fill the mould each time you lift it up and down ---this will take the blemishes off the needle and make it true and round again then put spinning needle point into hole with only water for fine polishing by the wood and water --- assemble injector without replacing cap and connect to injector pipe without putting injector in engine ---- bleed all air and dirt from pipe by leaving loose at the injector while spinning engine by hand or handle if you wish and then tighten pipe and you can now adjust the screwdriver slot on the injector head until you get the injector to break/ atomize properly ---as soon as you get it breaking stop as any more will be too much for the pump--- lock nut and put injector into engine --do not forget washer and keep away from spray on injector it will give you dermatitis . people who have no money do not let it stop them from doing their thing . denis buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Okopnik > take injectors apart and clean counting the exposed thread under the > cap before you take them apart in order to return them to the same > breaking pressure . Nice trick! (and really good advice overall.) I'm filing that one away in my head for future reference. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24564|24560|2010-11-24 15:36:21|martin demers|Re: winter cold storage|the reason why I am asking this is because of an article about liferafts ( wich is available on the net and is called; the abc's of liferafts) in that article it is mentioned not to inflate your liferaft for testing using the raft's gas canister because the gas they use becomes cold when inflating the raft and they say that cold is not good for the seems of the raft. so, cold, seems, winter in Canada..,and my question... Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mdemers2005@... Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:15:29 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] winter cold storage this came to my mind now that winter is close here in Canada; is it bad to store our inflatables , liferaft and running riggings inside the sailboat during winter ? Martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24565|24565|2010-11-24 15:37:42|Gord Schnell|PowerPoint pictures - BS40 (Amazing Grace)|Walter et all: http://members.shaw.ca/GraceYachts/ I was "stumbling around" in my boat files last nite, looking for pics I could post for you (and anyone else interested) Thought I would try the old link to my Shaw website (which has been inoperative for over 2 years) It's alive but with my latest, incomplete, iterations. What you will find is a site framework but no "display window". I hadn't completed the display links, I guess. If you "click" on the any of the Left Column Headers, PowerPoints will download to your compuuter in a separate "download window"! Once downloaded, you can open and view them...I think. I can't edit the site anymore....it seems to have been abandoned by Shaw....but still works, though, incomplete! This will give you an idea of the beginning stages......meanwhile, I'll see if I can "hook you up" with the rest of what I had completed. Obviously incomplete. Gord [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24566|24560|2010-11-24 17:00:55|Matt Malone|Re: winter cold storage|From ABC's of Liferafts: When it comes time to get my raft recertified, I thought I'd just take it in and pull the cord. I would watch what happened, then let them repack it. Homer said that was a bad idea. He explained that the cold nitrogen from the inflation canister was very hard on the raft. A raft will last for about five inflations, then the cold has taken the life out of the material. He recommends that when you're ready to have your raft recertified, take it to your repacking station. Most will encourage you to watch and videotape as they remove it from the canister, then inflate it with compressed air, which will not damage the raft. The gas escaping from a canister can get to a temperature that is related to the starting temperature of the canister by a ratio of the atmospheric pressure to the pressure in the canister. It is a little more complicated than that, but simply, if we are talking about room temperature and a high pressure cylinder, temperatures of -80C are possible -- I know this because I have made dry ice from allowing a canister to depressurize. Further, as the pressure in the canister decreases, the gas left in it gets cold, meaning, the atmospheric pressure gas is even colder. This level of cold: -40C to -100C is bad for rubbers/plastics. When a gas canister is cold to start with, and is used to inflate a life raft, the gas in the canister, and the gas escaping, can reach cryogenic temperatures far below -100C, and depending on the gas, liquid droplets of gas may be produced. This level of cold is really bad for plastics/rubber. Our winters that are -20C are not comparable to the temperature of gas from a canister, but still, I would leave the liferaft unmolested when the temperature is this cold. If you want to work on it, move it to a garage with more moderated temperatures, allow it a couple of days to warm up, then work on it. If the raft is on deck and might be exposed to water infiltration and freeze/thaw, bring the entire (packed) unit into the garage for the winter. The reason that air from a compressor will not damage a raft is that it is far lower pressure, and is warmed as it flows in the piping between the regulator and the raft. In a shop, the gas flowing into the raft may not even be below zero C. Matt > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:36:20 -0500 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] winter cold storage > > > the reason why I am asking this is because of an article about liferafts ( wich is available on the net and is called; the abc's of liferafts) > in that article it is mentioned not to inflate your liferaft for testing using the raft's gas canister because the gas they use becomes cold when inflating the raft and they say that cold is not good for the seems of the raft. > so, cold, seems, winter in Canada..,and my question... > > Martin. > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 01:15:29 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] winter cold storage > > > this came to my mind now that winter is close here in Canada; is it bad to store our inflatables , liferaft and running riggings inside the sailboat during winter ? > > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24567|24550|2010-11-24 19:22:27|Ben Okopnik|Re: Diesel opinion sought|On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 07:17:17PM -0000, Denis Buggy wrote: > DEAR BEN > re your file on injectors --- if you are on a desert island --- broke > with no hope of help --you can do the following - get a piece of > hardwood drill 2 holes only slightly larger than the needle of > the injector nozzle --then wrap thick end of the needle with > electrical tape and put in to chuck of drill and pour a little bit of > fine valve grinding paste with some water and press the point onto > the drilled out hole up and down while spinning -- the point will make > a mould for itself and the grinding paste will fill the mould each > time you lift it up and down ---this will take the blemishes off the > needle and make it true and round again then put spinning needle > point into hole with only water for fine polishing by the wood and > water --- > assemble injector without replacing cap and connect to injector pipe > without putting injector in engine ---- bleed all air and dirt from > pipe by leaving loose at the injector while spinning engine by hand or > handle if you wish and then tighten pipe and you can now adjust the > screwdriver slot on the injector head until you get the injector to > break/ atomize properly ---as soon as you get it breaking stop as any > more will be too much for the pump--- lock nut and put injector into > engine --do not forget washer and keep away from spray on injector it > will give you dermatitis . Denis, that's just beautiful. Thank you very much, and I've filed it away. I once spoke to a sailor in the Bahamas who had burned his valves and was broke; no problem - he mixed up some goop (Vaseline, I think) with some sand that he sieved and pounded fine. He then clamped a drill onto the valve stem, put his compound on the valve seat, pulled up on it and spun it for half an hour. That's one valve, on to the next one... As to keeping away from the injectors, I'm not likely to forget: I had to send one of the soldiers in my generator shop to a hospital with blood poisoning because he had stuck his hand under an injector while testing it for cracking pressure - "to see what it felt like". It's for people like him that our lab at Hughes Aircraft had a sign: "Do not look into laser with remaining eye". > people who have no money do not let it stop them from doing their > thing . Man, it really is totally about attitude. Some people sit at home and moan about how they can't do this or that; others get out there and do. As I get older, I'm getting to a point where I have less and less tolerance for the first kind. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24568|24565|2010-11-25 08:16:31|boatwayupnorth|Re: PowerPoint pictures - BS40 (Amazing Grace)|Gord, thank's for the ppt - nice work! I tried to download the stuff from the Shaw website, but all I got was a message "File not found". Pitty, you obviously did put a lot of work in it. We'll just have to wait. No hurry! Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > Walter et all: > http://members.shaw.ca/GraceYachts/ > I was "stumbling around" in my boat files last nite, looking for pics > I could post for you (and anyone else interested) > Thought I would try the old link to my Shaw website (which has been > inoperative for over 2 years) It's alive but with my latest, > incomplete, iterations. > What you will find is a site framework but no "display window". I > hadn't completed the display links, I guess. > > If you "click" on the any of the Left Column Headers, PowerPoints will > download to your compuuter in a separate "download window"! > Once downloaded, you can open and view them...I think. > I can't edit the site anymore....it seems to have been abandoned by > Shaw....but still works, though, incomplete! > > This will give you an idea of the beginning stages......meanwhile, > I'll see if I can "hook you up" with the rest of what I had completed. > Obviously incomplete. > Gord > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24569|24560|2010-11-25 10:54:49|Ben Okopnik|Re: winter cold storage|On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 05:00:53PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > The gas escaping from a canister can get to a temperature that is > related to the starting temperature of the canister by a ratio of the > atmospheric pressure to the pressure in the canister. It is a little > more complicated than that, but simply, if we are talking about room > temperature and a high pressure cylinder, temperatures of -80C are > possible -- I know this because I have made dry ice from allowing a > canister to depressurize. Here you go: http://www.opticsplanet.net/bel-art-frigimat-jr-dry-ice-maker-scienceware-f388860001-accessory-replacement-bags.html or http://x.co/Kabe For about $45, you can make dry ice from a CO2 cylinder. I remember running across something similar to this on Amazon some time ago, and thought it was a cute gadget. Something I overheard a while back: some industrial electric motor rebuilders are now using dry ice as a blasting "abrasive". The medium is cheap, you don't have to dispose of the used stuff (which can be really expensive), there's no grit caught in the works, and the EPA doesn't get involved. Awesome to see people using their noggins. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24570|24565|2010-11-25 10:59:38|gschnell@shaw.ca|Re: PowerPoint pictures - BS40 (Amazing Grace)|Walter. I suspect that it is still considering me as "editor" and downloads the files for editing. Would you like me to email them to you as attachments? What sort of internet connection are U using? Gord Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network. Envoy� sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le r�seau de Bell. -----Original Message----- From: boatwayupnorth Sender: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:16:30 To: Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: PowerPoint pictures - BS40 (Amazing Grace) Gord, thank's for the ppt - nice work! I tried to download the stuff from the Shaw website, but all I got was a message "File not found". Pitty, you obviously did put a lot of work in it. We'll just have to wait. No hurry! Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > Walter et all: > http://members.shaw.ca/GraceYachts/ > I was "stumbling around" in my boat files last nite, looking for pics > I could post for you (and anyone else interested) > Thought I would try the old link to my Shaw website (which has been > inoperative for over 2 years) It's alive but with my latest, > incomplete, iterations. > What you will find is a site framework but no "display window". I > hadn't completed the display links, I guess. > > If you "click" on the any of the Left Column Headers, PowerPoints will > download to your compuuter in a separate "download window"! > Once downloaded, you can open and view them...I think. > I can't edit the site anymore....it seems to have been abandoned by > Shaw....but still works, though, incomplete! > > This will give you an idea of the beginning stages......meanwhile, > I'll see if I can "hook you up" with the rest of what I had completed. > Obviously incomplete. > Gord > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24571|24571|2010-11-25 14:14:44|jhess314|Origami software|Is there any computer software available that can be used to design origami-style hulls? I'm curious what shapes of hulls can be matched by the origami method. John| 24572|24571|2010-11-25 16:39:48|Gary H. Lucas|Re: Origami software|John, It is quite difficult to accurately model an Origami hull because it appears that all surfaces are conical curves. However when the bow and stern are pulled together you actually get a compound curve. I have modeled the 31 footer pretty closely in Rhino 3D but my models all show a concave crease at bow and stern. Even my paper models show this crease, but in steel the crease doesn’t happen because of the angles welded inside before assembly and additional forces involved in bending produce a convex compound curve. I have a way of modeling the steel, but it is tedious. Gary H. Lucas From: jhess314 Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 2:14 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Origami software Is there any computer software available that can be used to design origami-style hulls? I'm curious what shapes of hulls can be matched by the origami method. John Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24573|24573|2010-11-26 04:32:12|bendeac2000|mainsheet cleating inside pilothouse|Hi, does anyone here have their mainsheet led into their pilothouse? I was wondering what people use to cleat the sheet? ben| 24574|24571|2010-11-26 05:00:53|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Origami software|Any and all industrial design sw will do this. Solidworks, CATIA etc. Mastercam may be able to do it. No-one here can afford any of them, however. 30k$ and up. Solidworks needs additional plugins if you want to take plate bend and stretch into account, and make cutting files from unrolled models. A model in Rhino can be unrolled for plasma cutting and is the cheapest easiest route to plasma cut files. Any good animation sw can make a picture/model of any hull. 3Dstudio, Maya etc. Rhino can do it, but as was said not necessarily easily. A picture or animation model, in my opinion, is not a design. A design helps you define and specify important parameters in a boat (or other complex project). Things like how to build it, how it will perform, parts list, major and minor engineering parameters etc. For really designing a boat, in cad, in my opinion, you should come up with a model that has; -piping and wiring -major subcomponents like tanks, chain storage, engines, propshafts, hotel appliances -rigging -major sailing components, such as winches, anchors, railings, cleats, sea chest, through hulls -volume and mass of each, inertia -hull as built, cut files on a sheet, parts numbering and labelling Learning to use any of the above sw is not trivial. About 20 years ago, I spent about 3 months to learn how to really use 3D studio and similar time on CATIA, 3 hours every single day. I did some commercial paid animation work after that. At a minimum, expect to do 10-20 excersizes of several hours each, and learn how to use keyboard shortcuts, layers, parts properties, integrate 3D models to excel files etc., lighting, cameras. I am now learning Mastercam as time permits, while re-assembling my CNC machine workshop after just moving. I am also setting up Rhino for on-demand making of parametric parts. Ie a I will have a hatch and portlight design and by choosing desired width, height and shape within given parameters, the hatch is automatically CNC milled to shape in steel. This is quite easy in Rhino, although somewhat limited, and very easy in Solidworks. The better industrial sw will integrate to databases easily, unlike Rhino. The part may be upto 160 cm in width and height, 1.6 x 3 m in future. Making the milling machine and learning to use a lathe and machine materials took about 6 years, a lot full time. > Is there any computer software available that can be used to design > origami-style hulls? I'm curious what shapes of hulls can be matched > by the origami method. > > John > > __._, [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24575|24565|2010-11-26 05:22:40|boatwayupnorth|Re: PowerPoint pictures - BS40 (Amazing Grace)|"Would you like me to email them to you as attachments?" That would be great! "What sort of internet connection are U using?" No problem here, it should handle most of it. Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, gschnell@... wrote: > > Walter. I suspect that it is still considering me as "editor" and downloads the files for editing. Would you like me to email them to you as attachments? What sort of internet connection are U using? Gord > Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network. > Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau de Bell. > > -----Original Message----- > From: boatwayupnorth > Sender: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:16:30 > To: > Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: PowerPoint pictures - BS40 (Amazing Grace) > > Gord, > thank's for the ppt - nice work! I tried to download the stuff from the Shaw website, but all I got was a message "File not found". Pitty, you obviously did put a lot of work in it. We'll just have to wait. No hurry! > Walter > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > > > Walter et all: > > http://members.shaw.ca/GraceYachts/ > > I was "stumbling around" in my boat files last nite, looking for pics > > I could post for you (and anyone else interested) > > Thought I would try the old link to my Shaw website (which has been > > inoperative for over 2 years) It's alive but with my latest, > > incomplete, iterations. > > What you will find is a site framework but no "display window". I > > hadn't completed the display links, I guess. > > > > If you "click" on the any of the Left Column Headers, PowerPoints will > > download to your compuuter in a separate "download window"! > > Once downloaded, you can open and view them...I think. > > I can't edit the site anymore....it seems to have been abandoned by > > Shaw....but still works, though, incomplete! > > > > This will give you an idea of the beginning stages......meanwhile, > > I'll see if I can "hook you up" with the rest of what I had completed. > > Obviously incomplete. > > Gord > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24576|24571|2010-11-26 06:10:12|jhess314|Re: Origami software|Looks like software design of origami hulls is not for us amateurs. Are there non-software methods of designing origami hulls? And then is there a way to "import" that design into something like FreeShip for further analyzation? John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > Any and all industrial design sw will do this. > Solidworks, CATIA etc. > Mastercam may be able to do it. > > No-one here can afford any of them, however. 30k$ and up. > Solidworks needs additional plugins if you want to take plate bend and > stretch into account, and make cutting files from unrolled models. > A model in Rhino can be unrolled for plasma cutting and is the cheapest > easiest route to plasma cut files. > > Any good animation sw can make a picture/model of any hull. > 3Dstudio, Maya etc. > Rhino can do it, but as was said not necessarily easily. > A picture or animation model, in my opinion, is not a design. > > A design helps you define and specify important parameters in a boat (or > other complex project). > Things like how to build it, how it will perform, parts list, major and > minor engineering parameters etc. > > For really designing a boat, in cad, in my opinion, you should come up > with a model that has; > -piping and wiring > -major subcomponents like tanks, chain storage, engines, propshafts, > hotel appliances > -rigging > -major sailing components, such as winches, anchors, railings, cleats, > sea chest, through hulls > -volume and mass of each, inertia > -hull as built, cut files on a sheet, parts numbering and labelling > > Learning to use any of the above sw is not trivial. About 20 years ago, > I spent about 3 months to learn how to really use 3D studio and similar > time on CATIA, 3 hours every single day. > I did some commercial paid animation work after that. > At a minimum, expect to do 10-20 excersizes of several hours each, and > learn how to use keyboard shortcuts, layers, parts properties, integrate > 3D models to excel files etc., lighting, cameras. > I am now learning Mastercam as time permits, while re-assembling my CNC > machine workshop after just moving. > > I am also setting up Rhino for on-demand making of parametric parts. > Ie a I will have a hatch and portlight design and by choosing desired > width, height and shape within given parameters, the hatch is > automatically CNC milled to shape in steel. > This is quite easy in Rhino, although somewhat limited, and very easy in > Solidworks. > The better industrial sw will integrate to databases easily, unlike Rhino. > > The part may be upto 160 cm in width and height, 1.6 x 3 m in future. > Making the milling machine and learning to use a lathe and machine > materials took about 6 years, a lot full time. > > > Is there any computer software available that can be used to design > > origami-style hulls? I'm curious what shapes of hulls can be matched > > by the origami method. > > > > John > > > > __._, > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24577|24571|2010-11-26 08:32:18|martin demers|Re: Origami software|you can try different origami style with paper. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: j.hess@... Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:10:03 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Origami software Looks like software design of origami hulls is not for us amateurs. Are there non-software methods of designing origami hulls? And then is there a way to "import" that design into something like FreeShip for further analyzation? John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > Any and all industrial design sw will do this. > Solidworks, CATIA etc. > Mastercam may be able to do it. > > No-one here can afford any of them, however. 30k$ and up. > Solidworks needs additional plugins if you want to take plate bend and > stretch into account, and make cutting files from unrolled models. > A model in Rhino can be unrolled for plasma cutting and is the cheapest > easiest route to plasma cut files. > > Any good animation sw can make a picture/model of any hull. > 3Dstudio, Maya etc. > Rhino can do it, but as was said not necessarily easily. > A picture or animation model, in my opinion, is not a design. > > A design helps you define and specify important parameters in a boat (or > other complex project). > Things like how to build it, how it will perform, parts list, major and > minor engineering parameters etc. > > For really designing a boat, in cad, in my opinion, you should come up > with a model that has; > -piping and wiring > -major subcomponents like tanks, chain storage, engines, propshafts, > hotel appliances > -rigging > -major sailing components, such as winches, anchors, railings, cleats, > sea chest, through hulls > -volume and mass of each, inertia > -hull as built, cut files on a sheet, parts numbering and labelling > > Learning to use any of the above sw is not trivial. About 20 years ago, > I spent about 3 months to learn how to really use 3D studio and similar > time on CATIA, 3 hours every single day. > I did some commercial paid animation work after that. > At a minimum, expect to do 10-20 excersizes of several hours each, and > learn how to use keyboard shortcuts, layers, parts properties, integrate > 3D models to excel files etc., lighting, cameras. > I am now learning Mastercam as time permits, while re-assembling my CNC > machine workshop after just moving. > > I am also setting up Rhino for on-demand making of parametric parts. > Ie a I will have a hatch and portlight design and by choosing desired > width, height and shape within given parameters, the hatch is > automatically CNC milled to shape in steel. > This is quite easy in Rhino, although somewhat limited, and very easy in > Solidworks. > The better industrial sw will integrate to databases easily, unlike Rhino. > > The part may be upto 160 cm in width and height, 1.6 x 3 m in future. > Making the milling machine and learning to use a lathe and machine > materials took about 6 years, a lot full time. > > > Is there any computer software available that can be used to design > > origami-style hulls? I'm curious what shapes of hulls can be matched > > by the origami method. > > > > John > > > > __._, > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24578|24571|2010-11-26 13:07:36|Gord Schnell|Re: Origami software|Brass shim stock (available from machine shop supply houses) works very well. sloder the seams where you would weld. It mimics the steel response to "bend and compress" forces remarkably. Gord On 26-Nov-10, at 5:32 AM, martin demers wrote: > > you can try different origami style with paper. > Martin. > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: j.hess@... > Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:10:03 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Origami software > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like software design of origami hulls is not for us > amateurs. Are there non-software methods of designing origami > hulls? And then is there a way to "import" that design into > something like FreeShip for further analyzation? > > John > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs > wrote: > >> > >> Any and all industrial design sw will do this. > >> Solidworks, CATIA etc. > >> Mastercam may be able to do it. > >> > >> No-one here can afford any of them, however. 30k$ and up. > >> Solidworks needs additional plugins if you want to take plate bend >> and > >> stretch into account, and make cutting files from unrolled models. > >> A model in Rhino can be unrolled for plasma cutting and is the >> cheapest > >> easiest route to plasma cut files. > >> > >> Any good animation sw can make a picture/model of any hull. > >> 3Dstudio, Maya etc. > >> Rhino can do it, but as was said not necessarily easily. > >> A picture or animation model, in my opinion, is not a design. > >> > >> A design helps you define and specify important parameters in a >> boat (or > >> other complex project). > >> Things like how to build it, how it will perform, parts list, major >> and > >> minor engineering parameters etc. > >> > >> For really designing a boat, in cad, in my opinion, you should come >> up > >> with a model that has; > >> -piping and wiring > >> -major subcomponents like tanks, chain storage, engines, propshafts, > >> hotel appliances > >> -rigging > >> -major sailing components, such as winches, anchors, railings, >> cleats, > >> sea chest, through hulls > >> -volume and mass of each, inertia > >> -hull as built, cut files on a sheet, parts numbering and labelling > >> > >> Learning to use any of the above sw is not trivial. About 20 years >> ago, > >> I spent about 3 months to learn how to really use 3D studio and >> similar > >> time on CATIA, 3 hours every single day. > >> I did some commercial paid animation work after that. > >> At a minimum, expect to do 10-20 excersizes of several hours each, >> and > >> learn how to use keyboard shortcuts, layers, parts properties, >> integrate > >> 3D models to excel files etc., lighting, cameras. > >> I am now learning Mastercam as time permits, while re-assembling my >> CNC > >> machine workshop after just moving. > >> > >> I am also setting up Rhino for on-demand making of parametric parts. > >> Ie a I will have a hatch and portlight design and by choosing desired > >> width, height and shape within given parameters, the hatch is > >> automatically CNC milled to shape in steel. > >> This is quite easy in Rhino, although somewhat limited, and very >> easy in > >> Solidworks. > >> The better industrial sw will integrate to databases easily, unlike >> Rhino. > >> > >> The part may be upto 160 cm in width and height, 1.6 x 3 m in future. > >> Making the milling machine and learning to use a lathe and machine > >> materials took about 6 years, a lot full time. > >> > >>> Is there any computer software available that can be used to design > >>> origami-style hulls? I'm curious what shapes of hulls can be matched > >>> by the origami method. > >>> > >>> John > >>> > >>> __._, > >> > >> > >> > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo > ! Groups Links > > > | 24579|24550|2010-11-26 18:08:38|brentswain38|Re: Diesel opinion sought|To build a wheelhouse for Phsyche, you will need a 6 ft by 12 ft piece of 11 gauge mild steel, wheelabraded and primed with gray cold galvanizing primer, or green devoe primer. For the trim, you will need 21 feet of 3/4 inch sch 40 ss pipe, and a couple more 4 ft lengths for handrails. It can be easily pieced together, so doesn't have to be long lengths. That scrapyard at McTavish road,(ABC) a few miles north of Campbel River is far cheaper than Selkirk. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "sunbear" wrote: > > Hi all: I opened up the engine of Psyche--having been told that it had filled with water siphoning from the wet system--I have attached two photos in the files "PSYCHE-Hamill" I haven't tried to move the pistons yet. The one clyinder was filled with some glop that was partly solid. When this was removed the walls were good but the piston top was quite corroded--If I can move the pistons eventually does this corrosion mean that I should replace this piston?? Your thoughts would be appreciated. MarkH > | 24580|24449|2010-11-26 18:13:30|brentswain38|Re: Pilothouse|Just had a cold sail from Comox to Lasquetti . Boy, what a contrast, with the old days, sitting inside a warm dry wheelhouse the whole way with the self steering doing all the work, the wood stove glowing, litening to the radio. In the old "Yachtie" days I would have been in the open cockpit in a parka battling hypothermia ( but looking trendy). Duuhhh!! --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, gschnell@... wrote: > > Not that it can't be done or that I can't do it, it's about the size of the files, the upload time and finding a "house" big enough to accomodate. I'll work on it tonite. Gord > Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network. > Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau de Bell. > > -----Original Message----- > From: boatwayupnorth > Sender: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:57:34 > To: > Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Pilothouse > > And I thought our winters are harsh! Makes you think of how the boat will behave when you are on the water without a shed to protect you. And makes one dream of warmer climates! > I found the link to the polishing discs you used: > http://unitedabrasives.com/catalog.php?page=39 > At least that's what was posted in this thread: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/message/1493 > > About the pics, can't you upload it all in the Photos-section? I have no idea how much work this is, have never done it. If Yahoo doesn't accept Power point, maybe you could upload it to Google docs (https://docs.google.com/)? > Maybe Ben or somebody else with more computer insight than me (pretty much everybody) has some better ideas? > Walter > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > > > Walter > > The snow certainly "removed" the roof ... no surprise. I did have a > > secondary tarp beneath the roof trusses that was only attached at the > > main beam of the roof and weighted at the top of the walls on ropes (? > > complicated?) It was there to minimize the vacuum changes under the > > roof tarp in high winds (really works well). It funneled the snow to > > the outer walls and onto the floor....but I don't know how long that > > will last. As insurance, I threw tarps on the decks until I get the > > sealant into the port frames......waiting for the temperature to > > moderate. > > > > I'm not sure I ever took photos of the stanchion/sheer pipe > > joints....but basically, SS welding is really easy to achieve a clean > > smooth finish. Using a flexible polishing disk (I'll see if I can find > > one for the name/Part Number). just gently work your angle grinder > > around the joint to polish out the slight wave left after welding. It > > doesn't take long to get the "feel"...... very light pressure on the > > disk (to avoid heat stains) and never stop moving the disk. > > > > Walter, I have lots of photos, of all stages of the project, and I > > even have a PowerPoint slideshow that was designed to lead one thru > > the hull and deck construction. I certainly don't mind sharing it, but > > it will require some serious "storage space" somewhere accessible to > > the group. > > Ideas anyone. > > Gord > > > > On 21-Nov-10, at 1:36 PM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > > > > > Gord: > > > "However, this mornings snow may have "removed" the problem of the > > > shed" > > > That doesn't sound so good, hope all went better than expected. > > > About the pictures - everything is of interest, of course. But if I > > > can take a pick I would love to see a close up of how you welded the > > > stanchions on the sheer pipe. Alex once wrote about a special > > > grinding disc you used that made the transition almost invisible. > > > And if I remember correctly you wrote some time ago that you welded > > > an I-beam into the pilothouse for lifting the engine in and out. > > > That sounds like a great idea, if you have a picture of that I would > > > be interested. And if you have some pics from the inside of the hull > > > before insulating that would be great, too. No haste, but don't > > > forget to upload it all before you are of and away... > > > Regards > > > Walter > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Walter > > > > What kind of pics would you like? She is in a shed with restrictive > > > > clearance around (making it difficult to get far enough away to > > > shoot > > > > the hull, decks etc.) > > > > However, this mornings snow may have "removed" the problem of the > > > > shed......just heading out to see what has happened. > > > > Gord > > > > On 20-Nov-10, at 4:09 AM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24581|24573|2010-11-26 18:19:02|brentswain38|Re: mainsheet cleating inside pilothouse|I use two padeyes , 2ft apart, one either side of the cupola , about 18 inches ahead of the hatch. I put a singleblock on each of these, and a double on the boom. I tie one end of the sheet to the becket of one block and run it thru the double , back thru the sungle then over the double again , then thru the other single and back to a cleat on ther back of the wheelhouse. There is no point in taking it inside the wheelhouse and the entrance point would be impossible to keep watertight. When theere is danger of them freezing solid, I take the sheets inside, thru a vent in the back of the wheelhouse. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "bendeac2000" wrote: > > Hi, does anyone here have their mainsheet led into their pilothouse? I was wondering what people use to cleat the sheet? > > ben > | 24582|24573|2010-11-26 19:34:51|Barney Treadway|Re: mainsheet cleating inside pilothouse|I would think you could enter the bottom of a self tailing winch with a little modification. Have a small lip to keep water from entering and you'd at least be able to sheet in. No lines inside at least. brentswain38 wrote: >I use two padeyes , 2ft apart, one either side of the cupola , about 18 inches ahead of the hatch. I put a singleblock on each of these, and a double on the boom. I tie one end of the sheet to the becket of one block and run it thru the double , back thru the sungle then over the double again , then thru the other single and back to a cleat on ther back of the wheelhouse. There is no point in taking it inside the wheelhouse and the entrance point would be impossible to keep watertight. > When theere is danger of them freezing solid, I take the sheets inside, thru a vent in the back of the wheelhouse. > >--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "bendeac2000" wrote: >> >> Hi, does anyone here have their mainsheet led into their pilothouse? I was wondering what people use to cleat the sheet? >> >> ben >> > > | 24583|24571|2010-11-27 09:28:52|jhess314|Re: Origami software|Great idea. I'd thought of using aluminum flashing as it is cheap and readily available, but hadn't worked out how to join the edges. I'm not sure if you can solder aluminum like you can brass. Are there any guiding principals for designing with origami? How do you make both halves symmetrical? And how would you transfer the design from a model to a full-sized boat? Does a full-size design that works well for steel also work well for aluminum? In other words, does steel and aluminum bend/fold the same, for this type of construction? John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > Brass shim stock (available from machine shop supply houses) works > very well. sloder the seams where you would weld. It mimics the steel > response to "bend and compress" forces remarkably. > Gord > On 26-Nov-10, at 5:32 AM, martin demers wrote: | 24584|24571|2010-11-27 12:03:20|Gord Schnell|Re: Origami software|John I'm no metalurgist, but I do know that aluminum is not as "plastic" as steel....that is to say, steel exhibits elasticity and shape memory that aluminum does not. Aluminum is less elastic and does not return to its' original size and shape after distortion...not like steel, anyway. Aliminum also exhibits a "brittle" characteristic that limits the degree and sharpness of a bend prior to "cracking" The reason I chose shim stock is the ease of "welding" the edges as is required in origami boats...shim stock "welds" easily with solder. You can achieve the whole model build at your kitchen table...no special tools: your set of paper plans (from Brent), carbon copy paper, a felt marker, pair of scissors, soldering iron and "flux core" solder (don't use "acid core". The result is a "gold-colored" boat model (which you could paint), add a mast , rigging and sails. It will withstand dropping on the floor and will outlast most of us. For what it's worth...........I did one to the hull, cabin and decks stage in under 3 hours....haven't finished it yet....one day, perhaps. After the "big" boat is done and in the water Gord On 27-Nov-10, at 6:28 AM, jhess314 wrote: > Great idea. I'd thought of using aluminum flashing as it is cheap > and readily available, but hadn't worked out how to join the edges. > I'm not sure if you can solder aluminum like you can brass. > > Are there any guiding principals for designing with origami? How do > you make both halves symmetrical? And how would you transfer the > design from a model to a full-sized boat? > > Does a full-size design that works well for steel also work well for > aluminum? In other words, does steel and aluminum bend/fold the > same, for this type of construction? > > John > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > wrote: > > > > Brass shim stock (available from machine shop supply houses) works > > very well. sloder the seams where you would weld. It mimics the > steel > > response to "bend and compress" forces remarkably. > > Gord > > On 26-Nov-10, at 5:32 AM, martin demers wrote: > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24585|24571|2010-11-27 13:58:16|wild_explorer|Re: Origami software|John, "How" is a secondary question. Primary question is "Why". You need to ask yourself (or share it with this group) "Why do I want to do this?". It will save you big deal of time and effort. Refreshing "basics" of geometry will be helpful. If you are going to make single chin hull, more likely, you will end up with similar hull as Brent (with some possible small variations). Search for "modeling" in this group. It was a lot of good suggestions about it. My main question about Brent's boats (1 year ago) was "headroom". But it looks like Brent's 40 footer has decent headroom and better characteristics overall (because of better displacement/hull_weight ratio). Main principals to origami hull: If you can draw the hull's shell just with a compass - more likely you can make it in "origami". If you make both halves identical - it will be symmetrical. You do scaling trough geometrical enlargement/reduction (dilation). --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > Are there any guiding principals for designing with origami? How do you make both halves symmetrical? And how would you transfer the design from a model to a full-sized boat? > > John | 24586|24571|2010-11-27 15:33:57|jhess314|Re: Origami software|Gord, What thickness shim stock did you use for what length of model boat? Using the ratio of 3/16" plate for a 36' long boat I get ~0.010" shim stock for a 2' long model boat. I've seen photos of a few origami boats built in aluminum, and I wondered if the same patterns used for a steel boat could also be used for an aluminum one? I assume the aluminum would need to be thicker. What thickness for a 36' boat? John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > John > I'm no metalurgist, but I do know that aluminum is not as "plastic" as > steel....that is to say, steel exhibits elasticity and shape memory > that aluminum does not. Aluminum is less elastic and does not return > to its' original size and shape after distortion...not like steel, > anyway. Aliminum also exhibits a "brittle" characteristic that limits > the degree and sharpness of a bend prior to "cracking" The reason I > chose shim stock is the ease of "welding" the edges as is required in > origami boats...shim stock "welds" easily with solder. You can achieve > the whole model build at your kitchen table...no special tools: your > set of paper plans (from Brent), carbon copy paper, a felt marker, > pair of scissors, soldering iron and "flux core" solder (don't use > "acid core". > The result is a "gold-colored" boat model (which you could paint), add > a mast , rigging and sails. It will withstand dropping on the floor > and will outlast most of us. > For what it's worth...........I did one to the hull, cabin and decks > stage in under 3 hours....haven't finished it yet....one day, perhaps. > After the "big" boat is done and in the water > Gord > | 24587|24571|2010-11-27 19:54:37|gschnell@shaw.ca|Re: Origami software|I don't recall the thickness but I'll mic it tomorrow and let U know. I used the drawings I purchased from Brent....just traced the various panels onto the shim stock, cut them out and soldered them together. Gord Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network. Envoy� sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le r�seau de Bell. -----Original Message----- From: jhess314 Sender: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 20:33:48 To: Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Origami software Gord, What thickness shim stock did you use for what length of model boat? Using the ratio of 3/16" plate for a 36' long boat I get ~0.010" shim stock for a 2' long model boat. I've seen photos of a few origami boats built in aluminum, and I wondered if the same patterns used for a steel boat could also be used for an aluminum one? I assume the aluminum would need to be thicker. What thickness for a 36' boat? John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > John > I'm no metalurgist, but I do know that aluminum is not as "plastic" as > steel....that is to say, steel exhibits elasticity and shape memory > that aluminum does not. Aluminum is less elastic and does not return > to its' original size and shape after distortion...not like steel, > anyway. Aliminum also exhibits a "brittle" characteristic that limits > the degree and sharpness of a bend prior to "cracking" The reason I > chose shim stock is the ease of "welding" the edges as is required in > origami boats...shim stock "welds" easily with solder. You can achieve > the whole model build at your kitchen table...no special tools: your > set of paper plans (from Brent), carbon copy paper, a felt marker, > pair of scissors, soldering iron and "flux core" solder (don't use > "acid core". > The result is a "gold-colored" boat model (which you could paint), add > a mast , rigging and sails. It will withstand dropping on the floor > and will outlast most of us. > For what it's worth...........I did one to the hull, cabin and decks > stage in under 3 hours....haven't finished it yet....one day, perhaps. > After the "big" boat is done and in the water > Gord > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24588|24571|2010-11-27 21:24:46|arctichusky44|Re: Origami software|A friend of mine is building a triple chine origami sled that is 55 feet long overall with a 50 foot waterline. It is a go fast boat with a pilothouse built out of 9mm. plate for the hull and 6 mm for the rest of the boat. I believe it was designed using rhino or an add-on to autocad. I will try to add a pic to the web but I think some pics are on origamimagic.com and look at the genoa55. ciao,Frank --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > John, > > "How" is a secondary question. Primary question is "Why". You need to ask yourself (or share it with this group) "Why do I want to do this?". It will save you big deal of time and effort. > > Refreshing "basics" of geometry will be helpful. If you are going to make single chin hull, more likely, you will end up with similar hull as Brent (with some possible small variations). > > Search for "modeling" in this group. It was a lot of good suggestions about it. > > My main question about Brent's boats (1 year ago) was "headroom". But it looks like Brent's 40 footer has decent headroom and better characteristics overall (because of better displacement/hull_weight ratio). > > Main principals to origami hull: If you can draw the hull's shell just with a compass - more likely you can make it in "origami". > > If you make both halves identical - it will be symmetrical. > > You do scaling trough geometrical enlargement/reduction (dilation). > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > Are there any guiding principals for designing with origami? How do you make both halves symmetrical? And how would you transfer the design from a model to a full-sized boat? > > > > John > | 24589|24571|2010-11-28 07:30:32|James Pronk|Re: Origami software|How far is he with this boat? The photos of the hull have been on the origamimagic page for a couple of years now. James --- On Sat, 11/27/10, arctichusky44 wrote: From: arctichusky44 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Origami software To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Saturday, November 27, 2010, 9:24 PM   A friend of mine is building a triple chine origami sled that is 55 feet long overall with a 50 foot waterline. It is a go fast boat with a pilothouse built out of 9mm. plate for the hull and 6 mm for the rest of the boat. I believe it was designed using rhino or an add-on to autocad. I will try to add a pic to the web but I think some pics are on origamimagic.com and look at the genoa55. ciao,Frank --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > John, > > "How" is a secondary question. Primary question is "Why". You need to ask yourself (or share it with this group) "Why do I want to do this?". It will save you big deal of time and effort. > > Refreshing "basics" of geometry will be helpful. If you are going to make single chin hull, more likely, you will end up with similar hull as Brent (with some possible small variations). > > Search for "modeling" in this group. It was a lot of good suggestions about it. > > My main question about Brent's boats (1 year ago) was "headroom". But it looks like Brent's 40 footer has decent headroom and better characteristics overall (because of better displacement/hull_weight ratio). > > Main principals to origami hull: If you can draw the hull's shell just with a compass - more likely you can make it in "origami". > > If you make both halves identical - it will be symmetrical. > > You do scaling trough geometrical enlargement/reduction (dilation). > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > Are there any guiding principals for designing with origami? How do you make both halves symmetrical? And how would you transfer the design from a model to a full-sized boat? > > > > John > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24590|24571|2010-11-28 09:08:04|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Alu hull in Origami|I dont recall that Brents boats have been done in alu, Brent ? But in principle, of course alu is a good to excellent boatbuilding material. 2 caveats; 1.Welding alu is a vastly trickier/harder job than in steel. Uness you are a pro welder with the equipment and experience, I would say that it is NOT what you want to do yourself. Alu welds are not proven by eye for strength.... they can easily look good, but can be reject welds inside and will fail in stress or over time, unlike in steel. The difference between a good and bad weld in alu is time, ie how fast/slow it was welded, and the difference is very small, apparently. - There is an option, go to a 4 week course, and buy the equipment, say 2000EUR for the welder and bits, and about the same for the course. - Alu is a lot more expensive by weight. - Alu hulls typically end up about 20% lighter, all in. - The scantlings in alu, ie thicknesses, you can get from a comparable sized displacement hull from any production builder. Strongall is one. 2. If you choose the alu route, you will be building a hull at about 3x the material cost of the steel hull. Overall, from a potential builders POV, I would say; Alu is a better option, IF and only IF you have the money to spend the extra 30-40k$ or 20-30 kEUR. Then again, if you have the money, for less than that, you might go for the 40 ft size in steel. Options; Use a pro welder/boatbuilder to do it. -> Benefits: + Hull re-sale value will be at least double the steel one, maybe more. + The hull will be lighter, and faster. + The work is done fast, and you get a basic sailaway hull in 1 month, as you are paying for pro work with tooling. If we accept 200 hours pro work, at 35$/hr for a qualified welder with tools, the work cost might be around 7000$. If you learn how to do alu, get certified in welding, and buy the tools, your cost might be about the same, but take 3-4 months before you are done. To start with, you could build all sorts of bits to gain confidence. It would still be a pro built hull (by You !), and you would have the tools and skills and welding ticket left over. Brent boats are an excellent option for a limited-funds, self reliant, go-small/go-know option. And this is exactly what many have done. Deviating from the proven steel/small/DIY appproach will only work if you have or are bringing in some special value that you have. This might be for example, -tooling and skills (metal fabrication, lathework, milling machines, cnc), -marine wiring, tooling, experience, -hydraulics experience and tooling and bits and bobs, -paint and finishes experience, sandblasting tols and experience, -CAD experience and software, -a professional work site (access to a place with overhead cranes), -a truck with a hydraulic crane, -farm equipment like tractors, caterpillars, bobcats etc. In which case you can go bigger/faster/better either in doing better finishes, a bigger boat or something like that. There are lots of experiences of failed paths where people have tried to deviate from the norm, and have an unfinished project on their hands that has not been successful in the end. These questions re: bigger hulls, aluminium, faster build time, etc seem to come up every couple of years. They are usually speculation and stay as such, unless significant resources are bought into the project from day 1. It is not that an alu Brent boat cannot be done, of course it can, and it will work. The significant important question in my opinion, for any potential builder, is whether they thenselves can do it. And to do this, the resources necessary to see the project succesfully concluded simply must be there, whether in skills and tooling or boat units $. > Gord, > > What thickness shim stock did you use for what length of model boat? > Using the ratio of 3/16" plate for a 36' long boat I get ~0.010" shim > stock for a 2' long model boat. > > I've seen photos of a few origami boats built in aluminum, and I > wondered if the same patterns used for a steel boat could also be used > for an aluminum one? I assume the aluminum would need to be thicker. > What thickness for a 36' boat? > > John > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24591|24571|2010-11-28 11:21:48|jhess314|Re: Origami software|Wild, This is a continuation of my question to this forum a few months ago regarding the feasibility of an aluminum origami trimaran. I'm looking for a narrower hull than origami designs I've seen thus far. Also, what I want will likely have two or even three chines. Since there will be no keel (dagger board or center board), I'd like at least a small section of the amidships hull bottom to be relatively flat so that it can be stable when it dries out. Thanks, Frank, for mentioning origamimagic.com. No hints of a trimaran on that site, but they are designing 3-chine hulls in aluminum, so they may be a good resource. Brent suggests that part of the strength of these designs comes from the curves of the hull -- like an eggshell. I'm wondering if the narrow hulls of a trimaran, with less of a curve, will not be sufficiently strong unless one uses heavier plating, stronger longitudinal stiffeners, or more frames? John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > John, > > "How" is a secondary question. Primary question is "Why". You need to ask yourself (or share it with this group) "Why do I want to do this?". It will save you big deal of time and effort. > > Refreshing "basics" of geometry will be helpful. If you are going to make single chin hull, more likely, you will end up with similar hull as Brent (with some possible small variations). > > Search for "modeling" in this group. It was a lot of good suggestions about it. > > My main question about Brent's boats (1 year ago) was "headroom". But it looks like Brent's 40 footer has decent headroom and better characteristics overall (because of better displacement/hull_weight ratio). > > Main principals to origami hull: If you can draw the hull's shell just with a compass - more likely you can make it in "origami". > > If you make both halves identical - it will be symmetrical. > > You do scaling trough geometrical enlargement/reduction (dilation). > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > Are there any guiding principals for designing with origami? How do you make both halves symmetrical? And how would you transfer the design from a model to a full-sized boat? > > > > John > | 24592|24571|2010-11-28 13:00:53|wild_explorer|Re: Origami software|John, So, basically you need canoe style hull. You need to estimate displacement of your trimaran and what material gives you reasonable displacement/hull_weight ratio. If you opt for a steel, you may try hydro-forming instead of multi-chin origami. You are going to do modeling of the hull anyway... Right? You can make 1:10 model from material 1:10 thickness. With hydro-forming you are less limited with hull shape and it is possible to make pretty strong curved canoe-type hull. Pros: - Canoe hull shapes available in 3-D on Internet. You can estimate displacement and choose material for the hull. - using hydro-forming, you make whole hull (with deck). Cons of hydro-forming: You need to make mold (more likely "pool-type" in a ground). It was a discussion in this group about it - even with some link for the hull made by such method and water pressure requirements. P.S. "CNC 6-axis Designs" gave very good review of 3-D software as well as pro/cons of aluminum. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > Wild, > > This is a continuation of my question to this forum a few months ago regarding the feasibility of an aluminum origami trimaran. I'm looking for a narrower hull than origami designs I've seen thus far. Also, what I want will likely have two or even three chines. Since there will be no keel (dagger board or center board), I'd like at least a small section of the amidships hull bottom to be relatively flat so that it can be stable when it dries out. > | 24593|24571|2010-11-28 13:58:01|Aaron Williams|Re: Origami software|Frank That picture is five years old. What does it look like now? Aaron ________________________________ From: arctichusky44 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, November 27, 2010 5:24:38 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Origami software   A friend of mine is building a triple chine origami sled that is 55 feet long overall with a 50 foot waterline. It is a go fast boat with a pilothouse built out of 9mm. plate for the hull and 6 mm for the rest of the boat. I believe it was designed using rhino or an add-on to autocad. I will try to add a pic to the web but I think some pics are on origamimagic.com and look at the genoa55. ciao,Frank --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > John, > > "How" is a secondary question. Primary question is "Why". You need to ask >yourself (or share it with this group) "Why do I want to do this?". It will save >you big deal of time and effort. > > Refreshing "basics" of geometry will be helpful. If you are going to make >single chin hull, more likely, you will end up with similar hull as Brent (with >some possible small variations). > > Search for "modeling" in this group. It was a lot of good suggestions about it. > > My main question about Brent's boats (1 year ago) was "headroom". But it looks >like Brent's 40 footer has decent headroom and better characteristics overall >(because of better displacement/hull_weight ratio). > > Main principals to origami hull: If you can draw the hull's shell just with a >compass - more likely you can make it in "origami". > > If you make both halves identical - it will be symmetrical. > > You do scaling trough geometrical enlargement/reduction (dilation). > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > Are there any guiding principals for designing with origami? How do you make >both halves symmetrical? And how would you transfer the design from a model to a >full-sized boat? > > > > John > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24594|24571|2010-11-28 17:16:41|Denis Buggy|Re: Origami software|JOHN I have studied the making of a trimaran for some years and it is a bigger challenge than I thought --- making an aluminium tri is much more difficult than a steel one . while you may form the hulls easier the boat has 3 hulls and tremendous forces acting on three hulls at the same time but all in different directions there fore your hull framing is crucial and you should consider a keel for strength . you can now buy plastic models of newer trimarans like uss independence CYBER HOBBY MODEL NO CHC-1051 and also BRONCO MODELS MODEL NO NB5025 this is what I am studying lately as nothing beats staring at a firm concept of anything . you can also check out the AUSTAL CO website who build all their trimarans in aluminium . I have some years of engineering experience and a little bit of kit to build a boat however building a aluminium trimaran which would make sense and hold together is beyond my abilities . a lot of boats have a steel hull and alum superstructure maybe this is the way to go . regards Denis Buggy To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 4:21 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Origami software Wild, This is a continuation of my question to this forum a few months ago regarding the feasibility of an aluminum origami trimaran. I'm looking for a narrower hull than origami designs I've seen thus far. Also, what I want will likely have two or even three chines. Since there will be no keel (dagger board or center board), I'd like at least a small section of the amidships hull bottom to be relatively flat so that it can be stable when it dries out. Thanks, Frank, for mentioning origamimagic.com. No hints of a trimaran on that site, but they are designing 3-chine hulls in aluminum, so they may be a good resource. Brent suggests that part of the strength of these designs comes from the curves of the hull -- like an eggshell. I'm wondering if the narrow hulls of a trimaran, with less of a curve, will not be sufficiently strong unless one uses heavier plating, stronger longitudinal stiffeners, or more frames? John [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24595|24571|2010-11-28 18:08:04|David Frantz|Re: Alu hull in Origami|I think you miss one big issue, amongst many, with Aluminum fabrication. That is the need to build indoors or in a location highly protected from the elements. Both common processes (TIG & MIG) require the use of shielding gasses which implies protection from wind. Either process requires clean metal and in the case of aluminum extremely clean. The need for very clean surfaces is the second factor that causes one to need an indoor location. This doesn't even touch upon other factors such as vastly reduced strength in the weld areas or the lack of malleability in aluminum structures. Nor does it cover issues with electrolytic corrosion. Some of these issues can be overcomed via alternate construction methods. For example it is still common for aluminum boats to be riveted together but you still end up with joints that can fail when stressed. I'm not trying to say that Aluminum boats are bad, far from it, just that there are a lot of factors that make the choice difficult for the DIY builder. Further I suspect that maintenance and attention to detail over the years is worst with an aluminum hull. Over the ships lifetime I would think that steel would be far more forgiving. David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. On Nov 28, 2010, at 9:08 AM, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > I dont recall that Brents boats have been done in alu, Brent ? > > But in principle, of course alu is a good to excellent boatbuilding > material. > 2 caveats; > 1.Welding alu is a vastly trickier/harder job than in steel. > Uness you are a pro welder with the equipment and experience, I would > say that it is NOT what you want to do yourself. > Alu welds are not proven by eye for strength.... they can easily look > good, but can be reject welds inside and will fail in stress or over > time, unlike in steel. > The difference between a good and bad weld in alu is time, ie how > fast/slow it was welded, and the difference is very small, apparently. > > - There is an option, go to a 4 week course, and buy the equipment, say > 2000EUR for the welder and bits, and about the same for the course. > > - Alu is a lot more expensive by weight. > > - Alu hulls typically end up about 20% lighter, all in. > > - The scantlings in alu, ie thicknesses, you can get from a comparable > sized displacement hull from any production builder. > Strongall is one. > > 2. If you choose the alu route, you will be building a hull at about 3x > the material cost of the steel hull. > Overall, from a potential builders POV, I would say; > Alu is a better option, IF and only IF you have the money to spend the > extra 30-40k$ or 20-30 kEUR. > Then again, if you have the money, for less than that, you might go for > the 40 ft size in steel. > > Options; > Use a pro welder/boatbuilder to do it. > -> Benefits: > + Hull re-sale value will be at least double the steel one, maybe more. > + The hull will be lighter, and faster. > + The work is done fast, and you get a basic sailaway hull in 1 month, > as you are paying for pro work with tooling. > If we accept 200 hours pro work, at 35$/hr for a qualified welder with > tools, the work cost might be around 7000$. > > If you learn how to do alu, get certified in welding, and buy the tools, > your cost might be about the same, but take 3-4 months before you are done. > To start with, you could build all sorts of bits to gain confidence. > It would still be a pro built hull (by You !), and you would have the > tools and skills and welding ticket left over. > > Brent boats are an excellent option for a limited-funds, self reliant, > go-small/go-know option. > And this is exactly what many have done. > Deviating from the proven steel/small/DIY appproach will only work if > you have or are bringing in some special value that you have. > > This might be for example, > -tooling and skills (metal fabrication, lathework, milling machines, cnc), > -marine wiring, tooling, experience, > -hydraulics experience and tooling and bits and bobs, > -paint and finishes experience, sandblasting tols and experience, > -CAD experience and software, > -a professional work site (access to a place with overhead cranes), > -a truck with a hydraulic crane, > -farm equipment like tractors, caterpillars, bobcats etc. > > In which case you can go bigger/faster/better either in doing better > finishes, a bigger boat or something like that. > > There are lots of experiences of failed paths where people have tried to > deviate from the norm, and have an unfinished project on their hands > that has not been successful in the end. > These questions re: bigger hulls, aluminium, faster build time, etc seem > to come up every couple of years. > They are usually speculation and stay as such, unless significant > resources are bought into the project from day 1. > > It is not that an alu Brent boat cannot be done, of course it can, and > it will work. > The significant important question in my opinion, for any potential > builder, is whether they thenselves can do it. > And to do this, the resources necessary to see the project succesfully > concluded simply must be there, whether in skills and tooling or boat > units $. > > > > >> Gord, >> >> What thickness shim stock did you use for what length of model boat? >> Using the ratio of 3/16" plate for a 36' long boat I get ~0.010" shim >> stock for a 2' long model boat. >> >> I've seen photos of a few origami boats built in aluminum, and I >> wondered if the same patterns used for a steel boat could also be used >> for an aluminum one? I assume the aluminum would need to be thicker. >> What thickness for a 36' boat? >> >> John >> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24596|24571|2010-11-28 18:28:32|David Frantz|Re: Origami software|You probably will have to do this in your mind as most of us don't have large sheets of metal laying around. In any event stand two long pieces of sheet metal (it actually doesn't matter if it is metal) on edge, one held straight and one held in a continuous curve. Now try to deflect either sheet, the curved piece will support itself the straight piece will deflect easily even if it is thicker stock. While I'm not sure why you want a narrow hull, I suspect that you would loose considerable internal space to frames and longitudinal members to allow for the required strength. Heavier plating would not help all that much in my mind. This is really a structural engineering question but anyone with materials experience would realize at once that a long narrow structure will require a lot of extra effort to keep it strong and safe. Also I think you are kidding yourself about a partial flat bottom. I don't see a combo here that would be stabile in a dried out anchorage. You already indicated you want a and narrow hull so just how wide would this flat be? It sounds to much like an upside down pyramid. David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. On Nov 28, 2010, at 11:21 AM, jhess314 wrote: > Wild, > > This is a continuation of my question to this forum a few months ago regarding the feasibility of an aluminum origami trimaran. I'm looking for a narrower hull than origami designs I've seen thus far. Also, what I want will likely have two or even three chines. Since there will be no keel (dagger board or center board), I'd like at least a small section of the amidships hull bottom to be relatively flat so that it can be stable when it dries out. > > Thanks, Frank, for mentioning origamimagic.com. No hints of a trimaran on that site, but they are designing 3-chine hulls in aluminum, so they may be a good resource. > > Brent suggests that part of the strength of these designs comes from the curves of the hull -- like an eggshell. I'm wondering if the narrow hulls of a trimaran, with less of a curve, will not be sufficiently strong unless one uses heavier plating, stronger longitudinal stiffeners, or more frames? > > John > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: >> >> John, >> >> "How" is a secondary question. Primary question is "Why". You need to ask yourself (or share it with this group) "Why do I want to do this?". It will save you big deal of time and effort. >> >> Refreshing "basics" of geometry will be helpful. If you are going to make single chin hull, more likely, you will end up with similar hull as Brent (with some possible small variations). >> >> Search for "modeling" in this group. It was a lot of good suggestions about it. >> >> My main question about Brent's boats (1 year ago) was "headroom". But it looks like Brent's 40 footer has decent headroom and better characteristics overall (because of better displacement/hull_weight ratio). >> >> Main principals to origami hull: If you can draw the hull's shell just with a compass - more likely you can make it in "origami". >> >> If you make both halves identical - it will be symmetrical. >> >> You do scaling trough geometrical enlargement/reduction (dilation). >> >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: >>> >>> Are there any guiding principals for designing with origami? How do you make both halves symmetrical? And how would you transfer the design from a model to a full-sized boat? >>> >>> John >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24597|24571|2010-11-28 20:21:18|wild_explorer|Re: Trimaran (Was: Origami software)|If you want long narrow hull with "flat" middle section, you can use "half pipe" type of construction. Just take long plate and bend it in VERTICAL direction. It will give you BOTH sides of the hull from one sheet (instead of joining halves). Deck will give needed strength for this section (use reinforcement for hull & deck if necessary). Ends could be done in "origami" or any other type of construction.| 24598|24571|2010-11-29 00:14:56|Ben Okopnik|Re: Alu hull in Origami|On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 06:07:28PM -0500, David Frantz wrote: > > This doesn't even touch upon other factors such as vastly reduced > strength in the weld areas or the lack of malleability in aluminum > structures. Nor does it cover issues with electrolytic corrosion. That's... just a bit too much generalization, at least for my taste. Aluminum structures do not lack malleability, nor is there any reason whatsoever to claim "vastly" reduced strength in the weld areas unless you're talking about a badly-made weld. Some aluminum alloys, for example, are at least as strong as mild steel; weight for weight, most of them are stronger than steel. But strength is not the key issue here. Overall serviceability is. That being said, I agree with the general point: aluminum is a material that requires a much more tech-supportive environment than steel does for both initial construction and maintenance. There is, for example, no way that I can think of to build a boat the way that Brent does in the video: throw some sheets on the ground, slice it up with a propane torch, stick it together with some rod, etc. (I actually laughed a bit trying to visualize doing anything like that with aluminum.) Steel is has a tremendous reserve in strength and elasticity - which can soak up a lot of mistakes on the part of the amateur boatbuilder. Steel is also self-contained, in terms of construction and maintenance: if you have a power source - even one as crude as three car batteries wired in series - and a handful of rod, you can do nearly anything with it. Aluminum, by contrast, needs a "long tail" of technology (and aluminum welding rods, which do an ugly, margina job, don't change that; if anything, they support the point.) In addition, it does not have anywhere near the capacity of steel for absorbing mistakes on the part of the builder - which can be a critical factor with your first boat. Last of all, there's an effect of the higher cost that's not usually considered: if you make some sort of a critical mistake with even a relatively large steel structure, you just shrug and throw it away (or do a bunch of cutting and welding - probably along with a bunch of swearing.) The base material isn't *that* expensive, after all. With aluminum, a large mistake may well be the end of your project - because a) cutting and splicing aluminum can get pretty touchy, larger HAZs and all, and b) the cost of the material is *much* higher, and taking a big hit in the pocket isn't something that a whole lot of us can tolerate. (As far as I can tell from all my years of experience with this odd breed of duck, amateur boat builders are all permanently broke. :) The effect of the above is to make the builder far more likely to give up. I know, that's kinda hard to quantify... but it sure looks that way to me. > I'm not trying to say that Aluminum boats are bad, far from it, just > that there are a lot of factors that make the choice difficult for the > DIY builder. That's well said. I'll add that, given the demonstrated level of knowledge by the person asking the original question (and I'm really not trying to be insulting or unpleasant here), I'm pretty certain that he has little if any experience with metalworking in general. That being the case, my opinion is that it would be a big, big mistake for him to start with aluminum. It's highly likely to lead to a major disappointment. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24599|24571|2010-11-29 02:24:02|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Alu hull in Origami - good/bad and some costs|Comments below; > > I think you miss one big issue, amongst many, with Aluminum > fabrication. That is the need to build indoors or in a location highly > protected from the elements. Both common processes (TIG & MIG) require > the use of shielding gasses which implies protection from wind. Either > process requires clean metal and in the case of aluminum extremely > clean. The need for very clean surfaces is the second factor that > causes one to need an indoor location. > Portable huts / tarps are a common solution. Remember we are talking about professional welding, for a short timeframe. Alu structures, and boats, are commonly repaired without them being indoors. A tarp strcuture is often used even at boatyards for repairs. > > This doesn't even touch upon other factors such as vastly reduced > strength in the weld areas or the lack of malleability in aluminum > structures. Nor does it cover issues with electrolytic corrosion. > There is no "vastly reduced " strength. A good alu weld is a good alu weld, and a bad one is a reject weld. As I said, the problem is that only dye or x-ray testing can certify an alu weld, eyeballing it cannot. Lack of malleability is certainly true, however, it does not affect alu boats. To date, alu boats, of which there are thousands, have not, in general, failed due to their lack of elasticity. Certainly joints have failed due to poor engineering and poor construciton, but that is a different issue, in my opinion. Unlike aircraft, which actually have an end-of-life due to this malleability issue, which have been tested and have a projected end-of-life based on repeated load-cell testing. Electrolytic corrosion in real life is a non-issue according to numerous builders and users. > > For example it is still common for aluminum boats to be riveted > together but you still end up with joints that can fail when stressed. > This would not seem to be the case, imho.Alu boats in large numbers, welded, are used by coast guards etc. worldwide. Coast guard, firemen, navy and border patrol boats go out in any weather. They see much, much harder service than any yacht. A lot of them are aluminum, and work very well. > > I'm not trying to say that Aluminum boats are bad, far from it, just > that there are a lot of factors that make the choice difficult for the > DIY builder. Further I suspect that maintenance and attention to > detail over the years is worst with an aluminum hull. Over the ships > lifetime I would think that steel would be far more forgiving. > Actually, alu boats need zero maintenance re:hull. A lot of them are not painted. A good example is the FPB series from Steve Dashew, one of the best if not the best offshore cruiser design in the world, with a lot of boats on the water, and about 30 years experience. The FPB series are not painted and the hull needs no maintennace. Same with french sailboats. The dashew polished the Wind Horse, for looks only, after 2-3 years, iirc. No paint. I was recently (2 years ago) on a alu liveaboard cruiser, in Barcelona. Alu hull, about 11 m long, built in France. Not painted. Never done anything to hull. Cruised full-time last 10 years. The reservations expressed are theoretically correct, however decades of experience with thousands to tens of thousands of boats have proven that alu is a superior material re: boat hulls. Succeeding in building a boat is the ability to integrate a medium-complexity project over a large nr of work-hours, and arrrive at a cosmetically pleasing end-result that can resist service in extreme harsh conditions (off-shore salt water environment), while delivering complex engineering results (hotel loads) with minimal maintenance and a goal of low cost-of-ownership. All the while undergoing severe mechanical stress in a wide variety of environmental conditions. My point, perhaps expressed too weakly, was financial and project-management oriented. Alu is not an easy, cheap material to get into, and lends itself poorly to the build it slow, paycheck- at- a- time, amateur construction, unless significant external/other resources are available. The real issue with alu is money. If you have, say, 60k, you can build a Brent boat, in a few few months, and go (about a 36, built Brent style, in Europe, but by basic materials from industrial suppliers at wholesale prices, delivered tomorrow, no junkyard finds needed, todays prices, todays regs fulfilled like holding tanks etc.). If you have say 120k, you can build it in alu. BUT for say 90k, you can have a much faster, bigger, more useful 40 ft boat in steel, instead of 36 ft in alu. In europe today holding tanks are mandatory for new boats. These might be $, EUR, or £ depending on where you live, and are my estimate on what it might cost today, with a medium-level workboat finish and Brent-advocated strong, industrial, fittings and galvanised rigging with basic electronics and hotel loads. My preferences would be for strong and simple. I myself would have a preference for industrial, powerful, reliable components as I use these and have come to appreciate them. No yacht bits at all, and no shiny wooden bits. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24600|24571|2010-11-29 07:53:42|jhess314|Re: Origami software|Wild, I'm not familiar with hydro-forming, but it appears to be rather involved for a DIY, one-off design. What appeals to me about the Origami method is its accessibility to the backyard craftsman. John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > John, > > So, basically you need canoe style hull. You need to estimate displacement of your trimaran and what material gives you reasonable displacement/hull_weight ratio. If you opt for a steel, you may try hydro-forming instead of multi-chin origami. You are going to do modeling of the hull anyway... Right? > > You can make 1:10 model from material 1:10 thickness. With hydro-forming you are less limited with hull shape and it is possible to make pretty strong curved canoe-type hull. > > Pros: > - Canoe hull shapes available in 3-D on Internet. You can estimate displacement and choose material for the hull. > - using hydro-forming, you make whole hull (with deck). > > Cons of hydro-forming: You need to make mold (more likely "pool-type" in a ground). > > It was a discussion in this group about it - even with some link for the hull made by such method and water pressure requirements. > > P.S. "CNC 6-axis Designs" gave very good review of 3-D software as well as pro/cons of aluminum. > | 24601|24571|2010-11-29 08:00:28|jhess314|Re: Origami software|Denis, I'm not sure why you think aluminum is more difficult to work than aluminum? I agree it is a little more fussy to weld, but you can use common woodworking tools to shape it: power hand saw, routers, planers. No need for an oxyacetylene or plasma torch. I didn't see any sailing trimarans on the AUSTAL CO web site, mostly saw large, powered trimaran ferries. Did I overlook something? John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > > JOHN > > I have studied the making of a trimaran for some years and it is a bigger challenge than I thought --- making an aluminium tri is much more difficult than a steel one . > while you may form the hulls easier the boat has 3 hulls and tremendous forces acting on three hulls at the same time but all in different directions there fore your hull framing is crucial and you should consider a keel for strength . > you can now buy plastic models of newer trimarans like uss independence CYBER HOBBY MODEL NO CHC-1051 and also BRONCO MODELS MODEL NO NB5025 > this is what I am studying lately as nothing beats staring at a firm concept of anything . > you can also check out the AUSTAL CO website who build all their trimarans in aluminium . > I have some years of engineering experience and a little bit of kit to build a boat however building a aluminium trimaran which would make sense and hold together is beyond my abilities . > a lot of boats have a steel hull and alum superstructure maybe this is the way to go . regards Denis Buggy > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 4:21 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Origami software > > > > Wild, > > This is a continuation of my question to this forum a few months ago regarding the feasibility of an aluminum origami trimaran. I'm looking for a narrower hull than origami designs I've seen thus far. Also, what I want will likely have two or even three chines. Since there will be no keel (dagger board or center board), I'd like at least a small section of the amidships hull bottom to be relatively flat so that it can be stable when it dries out. > > Thanks, Frank, for mentioning origamimagic.com. No hints of a trimaran on that site, but they are designing 3-chine hulls in aluminum, so they may be a good resource. > > Brent suggests that part of the strength of these designs comes from the curves of the hull -- like an eggshell. I'm wondering if the narrow hulls of a trimaran, with less of a curve, will not be sufficiently strong unless one uses heavier plating, stronger longitudinal stiffeners, or more frames? > > John > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24602|24571|2010-11-29 08:15:32|jhess314|Re: Alu hull in Origami|David, I agree that the shielding gas used in TIG and MIG welding can easily be blown away, and thus needs to be protected from breezes, but apparently it can be done outdoors. The hulls of both of the two boats linked below were welded together outdoors: http://ideaintegrator.com/boats/o7/const.htm [an aluminum catamaran] http://origamimagic.com/G55_Construction/G55_Prepare_To_Fold.htm [hull halves joined outside] For a general discussion about using aluminum for boat building see: "Aluminum for Boats" http://www.kastenmarine.com/aluminum.htm "Strength of Aluminum vs Strength of Steel" http://www.kastenmarine.com/alumVSsteel.htm John . . . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > I think you miss one big issue, amongst many, with Aluminum fabrication. That is the need to build indoors or in a location highly protected from the elements. Both common processes (TIG & MIG) require the use of shielding gasses which implies protection from wind. Either process requires clean metal and in the case of aluminum extremely clean. The need for very clean surfaces is the second factor that causes one to need an indoor location. > > This doesn't even touch upon other factors such as vastly reduced strength in the weld areas or the lack of malleability in aluminum structures. Nor does it cover issues with electrolytic corrosion. > > Some of these issues can be overcomed via alternate construction methods. For example it is still common for aluminum boats to be riveted together but you still end up with joints that can fail when stressed. > > I'm not trying to say that Aluminum boats are bad, far from it, just that there are a lot of factors that make the choice difficult for the DIY builder. Further I suspect that maintenance and attention to detail over the years is worst with an aluminum hull. Over the ships lifetime I would think that steel would be far more forgiving. > > David A Frantz > websterindustro4at4mac.com > | 24603|24571|2010-11-29 08:30:05|jhess314|Re: Origami software|David, You are correct that trimarans, with their long narrow hulls, are challenged for internal space compared to monohulls. You are also correct that they are a greater challenge to engineer. That is why I've been looking for trimarans already built in aluminum, so that I will have fewer bugs to work out. John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > You probably will have to do this in your mind as most of us don't have large sheets of metal laying around. In any event stand two long pieces of sheet metal (it actually doesn't matter if it is metal) on edge, one held straight and one held in a continuous curve. Now try to deflect either sheet, the curved piece will support itself the straight piece will deflect easily even if it is thicker stock. > > While I'm not sure why you want a narrow hull, I suspect that you would loose considerable internal space to frames and longitudinal members to allow for the required strength. Heavier plating would not help all that much in my mind. This is really a structural engineering question but anyone with materials experience would realize at once that a long narrow structure will require a lot of extra effort to keep it strong and safe. > > Also I think you are kidding yourself about a partial flat bottom. I don't see a combo here that would be stabile in a dried out anchorage. You already indicated you want a and narrow hull so just how wide would this flat be? It sounds to much like an upside down pyramid. > > | 24604|24571|2010-11-29 08:36:43|jhess314|Re: Trimaran (Was: Origami software)|Wild, Good suggestions. But that brings me back to my original question of whether there was any software accessible to amateurs that would help with that sort of designing? John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > If you want long narrow hull with "flat" middle section, you can use "half pipe" type of construction. Just take long plate and bend it in VERTICAL direction. It will give you BOTH sides of the hull from one sheet (instead of joining halves). Deck will give needed strength for this section (use reinforcement for hull & deck if necessary). Ends could be done in "origami" or any other type of construction. > | 24605|24571|2010-11-29 09:06:50|jhess314|Re: Alu hull in Origami|Ben I agree that the marine alloys are very competitive with steel for boat building. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. It's very easy to cut up aluminum sheet on the ground with a carbide-blade power saw -- far easier and with less distortion than cutting steel with a torch. And many other common woodworking tools can be used as well, which reducing the amount of expensive steel-working tools one has to acquire. And you don't have to worry about rain rusting the aluminum -- either before or after the boat is built. No need to paint an aluminum boat, either inside or out, except for anti-fouling. Not having to paint a boat is a big savings, both in initial cost as well as in ongoing maintenance. Also, while the cost/pound of aluminum is three times higher than for mild steel, you don't need nearly as many pounds of aluminum as steel to build a boat. I'm curious what I said, or didn't say, which led you to write "given the demonstrated level of knowledge by the person asking the original question...he has little if any experience with metalworking in general." John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 06:07:28PM -0500, David Frantz wrote: > > > > This doesn't even touch upon other factors such as vastly reduced > > strength in the weld areas or the lack of malleability in aluminum > > structures. Nor does it cover issues with electrolytic corrosion. > > That's... just a bit too much generalization, at least for my taste. > Aluminum structures do not lack malleability, nor is there any reason > whatsoever to claim "vastly" reduced strength in the weld areas unless > you're talking about a badly-made weld. Some aluminum alloys, for > example, are at least as strong as mild steel; weight for weight, most > of them are stronger than steel. But strength is not the key issue here. > Overall serviceability is. > > That being said, I agree with the general point: aluminum is a material > that requires a much more tech-supportive environment than steel does > for both initial construction and maintenance. There is, for example, no > way that I can think of to build a boat the way that Brent does in the > video: throw some sheets on the ground, slice it up with a propane > torch, stick it together with some rod, etc. (I actually laughed a bit > trying to visualize doing anything like that with aluminum.) > > > Steel is has a tremendous reserve in strength and elasticity - which can > soak up a lot of mistakes on the part of the amateur boatbuilder. Steel > is also self-contained, in terms of construction and maintenance: if you > have a power source - even one as crude as three car batteries wired in > series - and a handful of rod, you can do nearly anything with it. > Aluminum, by contrast, needs a "long tail" of technology (and aluminum > welding rods, which do an ugly, margina job, don't change that; if > anything, they support the point.) In addition, it does not have > anywhere near the capacity of steel for absorbing mistakes on the part > of the builder - which can be a critical factor with your first boat. > > Last of all, there's an effect of the higher cost that's not usually > considered: if you make some sort of a critical mistake with even a > relatively large steel structure, you just shrug and throw it away (or > do a bunch of cutting and welding - probably along with a bunch of > swearing.) The base material isn't *that* expensive, after all. With > aluminum, a large mistake may well be the end of your project - because > a) cutting and splicing aluminum can get pretty touchy, larger HAZs and > all, and b) the cost of the material is *much* higher, and taking a big > hit in the pocket isn't something that a whole lot of us can tolerate. > (As far as I can tell from all my years of experience with this odd > breed of duck, amateur boat builders are all permanently broke. :) > > The effect of the above is to make the builder far more likely to give > up. I know, that's kinda hard to quantify... but it sure looks that way > to me. > > > I'm not trying to say that Aluminum boats are bad, far from it, just > > that there are a lot of factors that make the choice difficult for the > > DIY builder. > > That's well said. I'll add that, given the demonstrated level of > knowledge by the person asking the original question (and I'm really not > trying to be insulting or unpleasant here), I'm pretty certain that he > has little if any experience with metalworking in general. That being > the case, my opinion is that it would be a big, big mistake for him to > start with aluminum. It's highly likely to lead to a major > disappointment. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              443-250-7895      end_of_the_skype_highlighting http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24606|24571|2010-11-29 09:08:46|Denis Buggy|Re: Origami software|John DID I OVERLOOK SOMETHING ? yes you did -- in your rush to reply you did not do any research on Austal as their sites flow to US military sites and research papers and other interesting articles and not to mention promotion videos on u tube and some clips showing the welding of the aluminum hull John and if you have a clue which I now doubt ---you would do a lot of learning seeing how they put it together . if you bothered to read my post you would see I made no mention of sailing trimarans and you are the first person I have met who thinks they can use woodworking tools generally on aluminum and the statement no need for a plasma or gas torch on aluminum tells me I am giving a book to somebody who cannot read and I should stop but not before I ask you to proof read your own message -- just the first line will do and John thanks thanks thanks again for all your help . bye for now Denis ----- Original Message ----- From: jhess314 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 1:00 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Origami software Denis, I'm not sure why you think aluminum is more difficult to work than aluminum? I agree it is a little more fussy to weld, but you can use common woodworking tools to shape it: power hand saw, routers, planers. No need for an oxyacetylene or plasma torch. I didn't see any sailing trimarans on the AUSTAL CO web site, mostly saw large, powered trimaran ferries. Did I overlook something? John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > > JOHN > > I have studied the making of a trimaran for some years and it is a bigger challenge than I thought --- making an aluminium tri is much more difficult than a steel one . > while you may form the hulls easier the boat has 3 hulls and tremendous forces acting on three hulls at the same time but all in different directions there fore your hull framing is crucial and you should consider a keel for strength . > you can now buy plastic models of newer trimarans like uss independence CYBER HOBBY MODEL NO CHC-1051 and also BRONCO MODELS MODEL NO NB5025 > this is what I am studying lately as nothing beats staring at a firm concept of anything . > you can also check out the AUSTAL CO website who build all their trimarans in aluminium . > I have some years of engineering experience and a little bit of kit to build a boat however building a aluminium trimaran which would make sense and hold together is beyond my abilities . > a lot of boats have a steel hull and alum superstructure maybe this is the way to go . regards Denis Buggy > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 4:21 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Origami software > > > > Wild, > > This is a continuation of my question to this forum a few months ago regarding the feasibility of an aluminum origami trimaran. I'm looking for a narrower hull than origami designs I've seen thus far. Also, what I want will likely have two or even three chines. Since there will be no keel (dagger board or center board), I'd like at least a small section of the amidships hull bottom to be relatively flat so that it can be stable when it dries out. > > Thanks, Frank, for mentioning origamimagic.com. No hints of a trimaran on that site, but they are designing 3-chine hulls in aluminum, so they may be a good resource. > > Brent suggests that part of the strength of these designs comes from the curves of the hull -- like an eggshell. I'm wondering if the narrow hulls of a trimaran, with less of a curve, will not be sufficiently strong unless one uses heavier plating, stronger longitudinal stiffeners, or more frames? > > John > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24607|24571|2010-11-29 09:44:12|rhko47|Re: Alu hull in Origami - good/bad and some costs|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > There is no "vastly reduced " strength. A good alu weld is a good alu > weld, and a bad one is a reject weld. > As I said, the problem is that only dye or x-ray testing can certify an > alu weld, eyeballing it cannot. Forgive me if I am wrong: I have never welded aluminum, but what I have read (probably on this forum) is that aluminum loses half of its strength at a weld because the effect of heat-treating is lost, whereas a steel weld has the same strength as the parent metal.| 24608|24571|2010-11-29 09:45:56|jhess314|Re: Origami software|Denis, My mistake. Apparently I didn't make clear that I am looking for information about using the origami technique to make a modest sized (35'-40') aluminum sailing cruising trimaran, not a large commercial power trimaran. FWIW, you can't "burn" or "cut" aluminum with an oxyacetylene or propane torch like you can with mild steel, though you certainly can cut aluminum with a plasma torch. But yes, it is quite doable to machine aluminum with carbide-toothed woodworking tools. If you can find them, it is best to get the tooth rake reduced from positive to either neutral or even slightly negative, and then use a lubricant, such as kerosene, to reduce the aluminum buildup on the cutting edge. As Denis correctly noted I made a typo in my previous post (and probably every other post :-) "I'm not sure why you think aluminum is more difficult to work than aluminum?" should have read: "I'm not sure why you think aluminum is more difficult to work than steel?" John ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > > John > DID I OVERLOOK SOMETHING ? yes you did -- in your rush to reply you did not do any research on Austal as their sites flow to US military sites and research papers and other interesting articles and not to mention promotion videos on u tube and some clips showing the welding of the aluminum hull John and if you have a clue which I now doubt ---you would do a lot of learning seeing how they put it together . > if you bothered to read my post you would see I made no mention of sailing trimarans and you are the first person I have met who thinks they can use woodworking tools generally > on aluminum and the statement no need for a plasma or gas torch on aluminum tells me I am giving a book to somebody who cannot read and I should stop but not before I ask you to proof read your own message -- just the first line will do and John thanks thanks thanks again for all your help . bye for now Denis > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: jhess314 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 1:00 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Origami software > > > > Denis, > > I'm not sure why you think aluminum is more difficult to work than aluminum? I agree it is a little more fussy to weld, but you can use common woodworking tools to shape it: power hand saw, routers, planers. No need for an oxyacetylene or plasma torch. > > I didn't see any sailing trimarans on the AUSTAL CO web site, mostly saw large, powered trimaran ferries. Did I overlook something? > > John | 24609|24571|2010-11-29 10:10:59|jhess314|Re: Alu hull in Origami - good/bad and some costs|rhko, You are correct that many of the more common tempered aluminum alloys, such as 6061-T6, will lose a great deal (80%) of their strength when welded, but with some post-weld treatment much of that loss can be recovered. However, the marine-grade alloys, such as 5083, so not lose as much of their strength when welded. In the link I gave in a previous post -- http://www.kastenmarine.com/alumVSsteel.htm -- Michael Kasten states that "5083 H-116 plate, as an example, has a yield strength 34,000 psi and an ultimate strength of around 45,000 psi", while "the as welded strength of 5083 H-116 aluminum plate (in the heat affected zone) is 23k psi yield, and 39k psi ultimate strength". Kasten then goes on to discuss how the scantlings of aluminum boats are adjusted to create a boat of similar or greater strength as a steel boat. John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "rhko47" wrote: > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > > There is no "vastly reduced " strength. A good alu weld is a good alu > > weld, and a bad one is a reject weld. > > As I said, the problem is that only dye or x-ray testing can certify an > > alu weld, eyeballing it cannot. > Forgive me if I am wrong: I have never welded aluminum, but what I have read (probably on this forum) is that aluminum loses half of its strength at a weld because the effect of heat-treating is lost, whereas a steel weld has the same strength as the parent metal. > | 24610|24571|2010-11-29 10:23:15|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Origami in Alu|It is well known and common to use woodworking tools on Alu. Any HSS tools, and especially carbide tools, will easily machine aluminum. Even lightweight CNC routers, homemade ones of which thousands have been constructed, routinely work with alu sheets and ingots without problems. Aluminum is routinely used also in CNC tools built by those who do not have access to real metalworking workshops. Unfortunately, for this use, just like for boat portlights, alu is perhaps the worst material possible, which is one of teh main reasons why practically most alu portlights leak after 10 years or so. Alu is about 3 times more expensive than steel, 1/3 the strength, and has 3x the coefficient of expansion of steel. The thermal conductivity and the large expansion/contraction, especially compared to glass/lexan, are what makes it a very poor engineering material for windows and portlights. Also, the great difficulty of painting alu well, has caused lots of problems for manufacturers of boat components. Recently, for the large, very expensive, top name brand Diamond Seaglaze (doors and windows) pilothouse doors and hatches on a lot of Nordhavns, the coating has failed. It is one of the rare cases where PAE who make the Nordhavns has dropped the ball, and neither Diamond Seaglaze nor PAE has adequately addressed the issue. Several owners have complained, with various levels of repairs. The problem was that after the warranty expires, DS did not want to help, and PAE said it´s out of warranty, and they did not build these components. I have read of lots of issues from boaters whose alu boats have been painted. The paint simply wont stick. Alu needs an acid etch and primer for painting, and is notorious for the paint coming off, despite professional coating and processes. In normal, smaller components than a boat hull, the most durable coating of choice is hard anodising, which is extremely durable, permanent and comes in a range of colors. It appears that at least one Brent origami boat has been started, but not finished, in alu. http://ideaintegrator.com/boats/o7/ian.htm I dont know of any that others, this one looked good, imho.| 24611|24571|2010-11-29 10:41:47|Micah Broussard|Re: Trimaran (Was: Origami software)|I am also interested in this as well. Just joined the group as I am debating the build/buy options myself. Looking at build options for a trawler in the 45-50ft range I spent about 10 years as an ironworker, several of those in shipyards certified as an xray welder so building in steel is my first choice. Aluminum would be ok as well, you just need to keep it cleaner than steel when you are welding. A wire wheel on a 4 inch grinder does wonders for preparing your surface though. It's so easy to prep there should not be any reason to not have good metal to work with. Given the ease of working with steel and it's relative availability while cruising I still prefer steel overall Any welding process that uses a shield gas can be done outside if you take precautions. It's well worth the time it may take to set up something to shield your joint from the wind and that is easy enough to do. If you loose your shield gas and the weld oxidizes on you it creates a heck of a mess and destroys your joint. After you have to grind it back to good metal and fix it you will wish you had set up your shelter. All that being said it can be done, I've swung from a crane and welded hull patches as a hurricane made landfall before, it's not much fun but it can be done. On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 08:36, jhess314 wrote: > > > Wild, > > Good suggestions. But that brings me back to my original question of > whether there was any software accessible to amateurs that would help with > that sort of designing? > > John > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com , > "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > If you want long narrow hull with "flat" middle section, you can use > "half pipe" type of construction. Just take long plate and bend it in > VERTICAL direction. It will give you BOTH sides of the hull from one sheet > (instead of joining halves). Deck will give needed strength for this section > (use reinforcement for hull & deck if necessary). Ends could be done in > "origami" or any other type of construction. > > > > > -- Micah Broussard [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24612|24571|2010-11-29 11:15:05|David Frantz|Re: Alu hull in Origami - good/bad and some costs|I don't have a lot of time at the moment but need to highlight that two people reading the same material will come to completely different conclusions. In the past I read the same article from Kasten Marine and come to the opposite conclusion and that is Aluminum isn't suitable for Origami design. At least not in the sense of taking a design known to work well in steel and transferring it to Aluminum. Especially with the DIY nature of many Origami designs. Now a ship designed from the ground up for Origami might be very nice but I've not seen any references. Kasten specifically mentions the need to reinforce welded joints, and numerous other issues that might crop up in an Origami design. It is not that an Aluminum Origami boat can't be done, I'm fairly sure it can be, but the design needs to be suitable for the material. Beyond the welds you have the issue of bending the sheets and the stressing and potential cracking that you won't likely see in Steel. I'm certain people with the right backgrounds can make the material work and do an Aluminum Origami on their first build. The problem is many more will think that they can and not be able to. If the average Origami builder is starting a project with limited metal working background and is on a budget then steel is the most forgiving material to start with. I gotta run I've already been side tracked to long. David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. On Nov 29, 2010, at 10:10 AM, jhess314 wrote: > rhko, > You are correct that many of the more common tempered aluminum alloys, such as 6061-T6, will lose a great deal (80%) of their strength when welded, but with some post-weld treatment much of that loss can be recovered. > > However, the marine-grade alloys, such as 5083, so not lose as much of their strength when welded. In the link I gave in a previous post -- http://www.kastenmarine.com/alumVSsteel.htm -- Michael Kasten states that "5083 H-116 plate, as an example, has a yield strength 34,000 psi and an ultimate strength of around 45,000 psi", while "the as welded strength of 5083 H-116 aluminum plate (in the heat affected zone) is 23k psi yield, and 39k psi ultimate strength". > > Kasten then goes on to discuss how the scantlings of aluminum boats are adjusted to create a boat of similar or greater strength as a steel boat. > > John > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "rhko47" wrote: >> >> >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: >> >>> There is no "vastly reduced " strength. A good alu weld is a good alu >>> weld, and a bad one is a reject weld. >>> As I said, the problem is that only dye or x-ray testing can certify an >>> alu weld, eyeballing it cannot. >> Forgive me if I am wrong: I have never welded aluminum, but what I have read (probably on this forum) is that aluminum loses half of its strength at a weld because the effect of heat-treating is lost, whereas a steel weld has the same strength as the parent metal. >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24613|24571|2010-11-29 11:49:53|Matt Malone|Re: Alu hull in Origami - good/bad and some costs|David mentioned: >Beyond the welds you have the issue of bending the sheets and the stressing and potential cracking that you won't likely see in Steel. To my knowledge, there is still no aluminum alloy that has a fatigue limit stress like steel. In steel alloys, below a certain stress, which is typically about 20% of yield (but look it up for your alloy), the alloy does not experience ordinary fatigue. Other types of failures involving chemistry and fatigue are still on the table, not such an expert as to rule stuff like that out. Anyway, if there is one part of the hull that is under stress, likely near a joint or weld, a fatigue crack may start in the aluminum where in steel it may not. As the crack gets bigger, more stress will be focused at the crack tip, and it will, in general, move faster. Really not much one can do except inspect aluminum regularly. With steel, in a proven design, there might be no part of the boat that regularly goes above the 20% of yield stress. I agree, steel is the most forgiving metal to work in. Steel's disadvantage, rust, is slow, and shows itself in brown stains. Cracks can be nearly invisible, and need not leak a lot of water in comparison to other moisture sources in a boat. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CC: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: websterindustro@... Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:14:13 -0500 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Alu hull in Origami - good/bad and some costs I don't have a lot of time at the moment but need to highlight that two people reading the same material will come to completely different conclusions. In the past I read the same article from Kasten Marine and come to the opposite conclusion and that is Aluminum isn't suitable for Origami design. At least not in the sense of taking a design known to work well in steel and transferring it to Aluminum. Especially with the DIY nature of many Origami designs. Now a ship designed from the ground up for Origami might be very nice but I've not seen any references. Kasten specifically mentions the need to reinforce welded joints, and numerous other issues that might crop up in an Origami design. It is not that an Aluminum Origami boat can't be done, I'm fairly sure it can be, but the design needs to be suitable for the material. Beyond the welds you have the issue of bending the sheets and the stressing and potential cracking that you won't likely see in Steel. I'm certain people with the right backgrounds can make the material work and do an Aluminum Origami on their first build. The problem is many more will think that they can and not be able to. If the average Origami builder is starting a project with limited metal working background and is on a budget then steel is the most forgiving material to start with. I gotta run I've already been side tracked to long. David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. On Nov 29, 2010, at 10:10 AM, jhess314 wrote: > rhko, > You are correct that many of the more common tempered aluminum alloys, such as 6061-T6, will lose a great deal (80%) of their strength when welded, but with some post-weld treatment much of that loss can be recovered. > > However, the marine-grade alloys, such as 5083, so not lose as much of their strength when welded. In the link I gave in a previous post -- http://www.kastenmarine.com/alumVSsteel.htm -- Michael Kasten states that "5083 H-116 plate, as an example, has a yield strength 34,000 psi and an ultimate strength of around 45,000 psi", while "the as welded strength of 5083 H-116 aluminum plate (in the heat affected zone) is 23k psi yield, and 39k psi ultimate strength". > > Kasten then goes on to discuss how the scantlings of aluminum boats are adjusted to create a boat of similar or greater strength as a steel boat. > > John > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "rhko47" wrote: >> >> >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: >> >>> There is no "vastly reduced " strength. A good alu weld is a good alu >>> weld, and a bad one is a reject weld. >>> As I said, the problem is that only dye or x-ray testing can certify an >>> alu weld, eyeballing it cannot. >> Forgive me if I am wrong: I have never welded aluminum, but what I have read (probably on this forum) is that aluminum loses half of its strength at a weld because the effect of heat-treating is lost, whereas a steel weld has the same strength as the parent metal. >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24614|24571|2010-11-29 12:23:06|Mark Hamill|Re: Alu hull in Origami - good/bad and some costs|Maybe join this forum??-- http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/metal-boat-building/building-aluminum-catamaran-4223.html You might also contact Scott Brown Multihulls and ask him for designers. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24615|24571|2010-11-29 13:21:18|wild_explorer|Re: Trimaran (Was: Origami software)|John, There is no simple answers for your questions. You know what you want - Trimaran in aluminum. This is very complex project - professional type (not for beginners/DIY). Professional project needs professional software as it was outlined in message #24574 (strength analysis, hydrostatics for complex floating structures, etc). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/message/24574 You need to have deep knowledge (or at least basics) of multi-hull's boat design. Do not do mistake I did - starting to play with 3-D and realize later you MUST know boat design anyway and using 3-D just helps to design something simpler than on paper. Software will NOT substitute basic knowledge of hull's/boat's design. For a start, you may take a look at RC (radio-controlled) boat modeling forums to learn design's basics. There is a lot of information in these forums about boat design in general and, in most cases, even more than you can find in boatbuilding forums - some people do very deep analysis of model's sailing/hydrostatic/speed characteristics. And it is very helpful for boat modeling anyway. If you just want to play with 3-D software, you can try SketchUp. There are some 3-D models available. http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/search?q=trimaran It may not be a good choice for hull's design, but very useful for interior design and general drawing. And it is free... There are lot of additional scripts for this application. Your time will not be wasted to learn it. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > Wild, > > Good suggestions. But that brings me back to my original question of whether there was any software accessible to amateurs that would help with that sort of designing? > > John | 24616|24523|2010-11-29 14:06:43|Matt Malone|Strength of Orgami|This was " At what point is the hull shape "locked"? " In my last post, I explained how sheets meeting at near-right angles (70-110 degrees) tend to stiffen each other because they transfer shear flow. I also talked about free edges, and how closing the box makes the box more stiff, and by certain measures stronger. The engineer in me likes to tell the entire story, not just the best parts of it. I have noted in various construction photos like this: http://theboat.smugmug.com/Boats/Kim/14192611_nezSR#1092933216_8sNrt That the deck and hull, and other near-right angle joints come together and are welded. So long as everything is connected, and stays connected, the orgami shell has egg-like stiffness, and maybe strength. The only thing the orgami shape really guarantees is stiffness, and the hull might actually be "brittle" meaning, really good stiffness, but no plasticity to speak of at that stress level, really more of a buckling-like loss of strength until there is some secondary reinforcement after partial collapse. Take an empty aluminium pop can for instance. If one is careful, a 200 lb man can balance on one, but once it starts to go, it quickly crushes down to one third or less of its height. This buckling is a brittle behaviour of the structure, even though the material is very tough. Once crushed down, the crush of the can starts to reinforce the can again, and the collapse stops. If one is balanced on a can and a second person very carefully touches the side of the can with something like the eraser end of a pencil, the can's collapse will occur immediately. Buckling is unstable and leads to brittle-like failures of structures. In a frame-design boat, there is a lot more steel in the frames, at stations down the length of the boat. Buckling is different -- there is a lot of inter-frame buckling, and frames can prevent buckles from involving the entire hull. If one has seen a lot of pictures of old freighters, then one is used to seeing the golf-ball dimpling effect of inter-frame buckling on old rusty freighters that have pounded in waves. http://my.qoop.com/store/Photogenic-Asia---Royalty-Free-Images-3201258271360100/Old-Freighter-by-Shi-Yali-qpps_9751215685575943/ The frames also experience more stiffening as buckling proceeds than a skin-hull would. Placing all of the weight of the steel in the skin certainly creates greater initial stiffness, but gives up the reinforcing properties of frames once buckling starts. One possible failure mode of an orgami is a seam letting go. What is the danger of a seam letting go? The local stiffness of the hull goes down. The two plates are now not reinforcing each other the same way. With a reduction in stiffness, at the same force levels, the deflections increase, locally. The two plates can buckle. Take a 2 liter cardboard milk container with a plastic screw-top. Cut a 2cm long cut in along one of the edges of the carton half way down the side. Compare it to a similar container with no cut. If one compresses the container end-to-end, the cut may open up like eyelids. With increased deflections, the local stresses at the part of the seam that is still holding on, immediately adjacent to the opening, increase. If the stresses are cyclic, like from a sea, the seam can flex back and forth -- like a coat hanger -- a particular section of seam can fatigue in just a few cycles and the seam separation can advance. The more it advances, the less stiff the hull becomes and the more it deflects, and the more force at that part of the seam still just holding on. If an orgami seam starts to go, it can zipper a little more with each wave. Now, steel vs. fibreglass (real mat fibreglass not chop-spray boats): No comparison, the steel is stronger, but the joints might not be stronger. Try breaking a coathanger. Try breaking a 3/16" rod of fibreglass. Also, fibreglass, a much less stiff material to start out with, that is made thicker, so would tend to create less stress concentration. Also, fibreglass mat layups are very resistant to zippering, they hinge and fray, but tend not to zipper. Where would this be better ? Probably nowhere in practicality, this is not an argument for fibreglass boats, just an observation of how a much weaker material is exploited well to get good over all properties for a hull. Therefore much greater hull strength should be possible with steel. After looking at the construction photos of several orgamis, I see a flat deck meeting a flat topsides. Both are stiff in-plane, and both are stiffened by the other out of plane, but the stiffening of the joint in flex comes from 3 dimensional effects. A more direct stiffening might be used, using gusset plates, or internal webs. Here is a web page that talks about gusset plates on a beam structure. http://www.strand7.com/html/Webnotes/Gusset.htm These gussets , or small mini-frames if you will, might be welding into inside corners on the inside of the hull. They would contribute slightly to stiffness of the boat, however, they contribute significantly to "toughness". Once a boat buckles, these frames have to stretch a lot, and keep stretching the more it buckles. Also, if a seam starts to let go, the opening might easily stop at a gusset web. Each gusset might weigh a pound or two, and welding in one every foot on all interior corners, would add about 100-200 pounds to the weight of a 26' boat. Maybe every 2 feet would work almost as well. Don't know, have not run the numbers. An orgami without gussets, looking at a seam opening problem should look to the construction methods -- get a chain-winch across the gap to hold it closed (reduce deflections which would reduce the tendency for a seam to run), and rejoin the edges ASAP to re-establish shear flow. I am not suggesting an orgami might spontaneously peel like a banana, however there is no reason not to invest a small amount of weight, and time, and probably no new material (gussets might come from scraps) putting direct stiffness into one aspect of the orgami hull -- seam hinging -- and at the same time, provide stop-points for seam failures. Gussets would add to the forces needed to continue buckling that initially stiff steel shell. Providing more capacity to continue carrying loads after the hull begins to yield is a type of toughness. Gussets would seem to confer more of the steel's natural strength and toughness to the overall hull shape at very small cost. I also like the idea of bulkheads, 2 or more of them, to divide the volume up to make flooding, fire, etc a local problem to one section. Bulkheads need not be really thick steel since one might see and paint both sides regularly. But bulkheads are an entirely different measure to gussets. Matt --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > That makes sense. Thin sheet structures gain stiffness by curvature, yes, but also connectedness. The connectedness allows shear loads to be transferred from one panel to the next. Try it with a standard 8-flap cardboard box (4 flaps on the bottom, 4 on the top). Close the bottom well, with tape. Fold the top shut but do not tape it. Deform the box, and the two top flaps will slide laterally relative to one another. This is because no shear force can be transferred from one to the other, so they move. Place some tape over the boundary between the flaps on the top, and suddenly the shape of the box is locked. > > From the description of what you say though, the doghouse and cockpit are not in. So you still have free edges of deck sheets. To save yourself some tiny deformation of the hull, which might manifest itself as a little up and down, out of plane deflection in the deck edge where it is currently attached to nothing, leave the cross brace in for a moment. Once something is welded to the inner edge of the deck, something that is stiff in the up and down direction, like the cabin sides and cockpit sides, there is less possibility of this free-edge deflection. > > The reason is, tack-welding sheets at sharp angles (like 70-110 degrees) it is sort of like a lever. Every time one tacks in another sheet, essentially at right angles to the previous one, the first sheet is stiffened greatly by the in-plane stiffness of the second sheet. The small out-of-plane deflections of the second sheet are the only degree of freedom left. The first sheet has very little mechanical advantage over this degree of freedom (like a really short lever) but can cause largish deflections with tremendous forces. The lever works both ways though, the largish out of plane deflections of the second sheet's free edge have a tremendous mechanical advantage over the rest of the hull. Forcing that free edge straight takes a relatively small force through a largish distance, and applies huge forces on the hull to deflect it very slightly, to put its shape back to the deck-flat shape when the brace was in. > > Therefore, when Brent was pulling inside the hull, with the decks on, he was working at the hard end of the lever. > > Flattening the decks by hand, while tacking in the cockpit sides and cabin sides will not be as hard as deforming the hull, but might be more force than one can apply with one hand while using the welder in the other. Leaving that brace in until one has turned the second angle, on the deck, to the cockpit sides and cabin sides, is like putting a lever on lever. Not only is the hull more rigidly held, the deck free edge is no longer free and can't buckle out of plane. Lastly, forcing the now free edge of the cockpit sides and cabin sides right (assuming the brace is removed) may not be necessary, and will be far easier because you are taking advantage of the mechanical advantage of the lever *squared*. > > This is likely too fine of a distinction for most. One more come-along will solve a lot of problems, but I like things to line up like they are supposed to, without having doubts of where that deflection is coming from. I also feel this leads to a design with the minimum of built-in stress which just makes it stronger relative to outside forces. So I would leave the brace in for now. For practicality reasons, the entire dog house or cockpit might be constructed as a unit, not on the boat, say in a garage, and then lifted into place as a unit. I would leave the brace in until it is tacked down, just to keep the deck sheets as flat as the day you tacked them down, and avoid uncertainty later. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:42:39 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"? > > > Once all the decks are on ,it is locked. We once tried to change it after all the decks were on, and ended up breaking the handle off a 3 ton come along, without moving it a sixteenth of an inch. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hello all ... > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near the centerline. > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap back in! > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24617|24523|2010-11-29 14:48:25|Aaron Williams|Re: Strength of Orgami|Someone had a photo of a Swain boat that was T-Boned by a freighter and made it back to port. Aaron ________________________________ From: Matt Malone To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 10:06:42 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Strength of Orgami   This was " At what point is the hull shape "locked"? " In my last post, I explained how sheets meeting at near-right angles (70-110 degrees) tend to stiffen each other because they transfer shear flow. I also talked about free edges, and how closing the box makes the box more stiff, and by certain measures stronger. The engineer in me likes to tell the entire story, not just the best parts of it. I have noted in various construction photos like this: http://theboat.smugmug.com/Boats/Kim/14192611_nezSR#1092933216_8sNrt That the deck and hull, and other near-right angle joints come together and are welded. So long as everything is connected, and stays connected, the orgami shell has egg-like stiffness, and maybe strength. The only thing the orgami shape really guarantees is stiffness, and the hull might actually be "brittle" meaning, really good stiffness, but no plasticity to speak of at that stress level, really more of a buckling-like loss of strength until there is some secondary reinforcement after partial collapse. Take an empty aluminium pop can for instance. If one is careful, a 200 lb man can balance on one, but once it starts to go, it quickly crushes down to one third or less of its height. This buckling is a brittle behaviour of the structure, even though the material is very tough. Once crushed down, the crush of the can starts to reinforce the can again, and the collapse stops. If one is balanced on a can and a second person very carefully touches the side of the can with something like the eraser end of a pencil, the can's collapse will occur immediately. Buckling is unstable and leads to brittle-like failures of structures. In a frame-design boat, there is a lot more steel in the frames, at stations down the length of the boat. Buckling is different -- there is a lot of inter-frame buckling, and frames can prevent buckles from involving the entire hull. If one has seen a lot of pictures of old freighters, then one is used to seeing the golf-ball dimpling effect of inter-frame buckling on old rusty freighters that have pounded in waves. http://my.qoop.com/store/Photogenic-Asia---Royalty-Free-Images-3201258271360100/Old-Freighter-by-Shi-Yali-qpps_9751215685575943/ The frames also experience more stiffening as buckling proceeds than a skin-hull would. Placing all of the weight of the steel in the skin certainly creates greater initial stiffness, but gives up the reinforcing properties of frames once buckling starts. One possible failure mode of an orgami is a seam letting go. What is the danger of a seam letting go? The local stiffness of the hull goes down. The two plates are now not reinforcing each other the same way. With a reduction in stiffness, at the same force levels, the deflections increase, locally. The two plates can buckle. Take a 2 liter cardboard milk container with a plastic screw-top. Cut a 2cm long cut in along one of the edges of the carton half way down the side. Compare it to a similar container with no cut. If one compresses the container end-to-end, the cut may open up like eyelids. With increased deflections, the local stresses at the part of the seam that is still holding on, immediately adjacent to the opening, increase. If the stresses are cyclic, like from a sea, the seam can flex back and forth -- like a coat hanger -- a particular section of seam can fatigue in just a few cycles and the seam separation can advance. The more it advances, the less stiff the hull becomes and the more it deflects, and the more force at that part of the seam still just holding on. If an orgami seam starts to go, it can zipper a little more with each wave. Now, steel vs. fibreglass (real mat fibreglass not chop-spray boats): No comparison, the steel is stronger, but the joints might not be stronger. Try breaking a coathanger. Try breaking a 3/16" rod of fibreglass. Also, fibreglass, a much less stiff material to start out with, that is made thicker, so would tend to create less stress concentration. Also, fibreglass mat layups are very resistant to zippering, they hinge and fray, but tend not to zipper. Where would this be better ? Probably nowhere in practicality, this is not an argument for fibreglass boats, just an observation of how a much weaker material is exploited well to get good over all properties for a hull. Therefore much greater hull strength should be possible with steel. After looking at the construction photos of several orgamis, I see a flat deck meeting a flat topsides. Both are stiff in-plane, and both are stiffened by the other out of plane, but the stiffening of the joint in flex comes from 3 dimensional effects. A more direct stiffening might be used, using gusset plates, or internal webs. Here is a web page that talks about gusset plates on a beam structure. http://www.strand7.com/html/Webnotes/Gusset.htm These gussets , or small mini-frames if you will, might be welding into inside corners on the inside of the hull. They would contribute slightly to stiffness of the boat, however, they contribute significantly to "toughness". Once a boat buckles, these frames have to stretch a lot, and keep stretching the more it buckles. Also, if a seam starts to let go, the opening might easily stop at a gusset web. Each gusset might weigh a pound or two, and welding in one every foot on all interior corners, would add about 100-200 pounds to the weight of a 26' boat. Maybe every 2 feet would work almost as well. Don't know, have not run the numbers. An orgami without gussets, looking at a seam opening problem should look to the construction methods -- get a chain-winch across the gap to hold it closed (reduce deflections which would reduce the tendency for a seam to run), and rejoin the edges ASAP to re-establish shear flow. I am not suggesting an orgami might spontaneously peel like a banana, however there is no reason not to invest a small amount of weight, and time, and probably no new material (gussets might come from scraps) putting direct stiffness into one aspect of the orgami hull -- seam hinging -- and at the same time, provide stop-points for seam failures. Gussets would add to the forces needed to continue buckling that initially stiff steel shell. Providing more capacity to continue carrying loads after the hull begins to yield is a type of toughness. Gussets would seem to confer more of the steel's natural strength and toughness to the overall hull shape at very small cost. I also like the idea of bulkheads, 2 or more of them, to divide the volume up to make flooding, fire, etc a local problem to one section. Bulkheads need not be really thick steel since one might see and paint both sides regularly. But bulkheads are an entirely different measure to gussets. Matt --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > That makes sense. Thin sheet structures gain stiffness by curvature, yes, but >also connectedness. The connectedness allows shear loads to be transferred from >one panel to the next. Try it with a standard 8-flap cardboard box (4 flaps on >the bottom, 4 on the top). Close the bottom well, with tape. Fold the top shut >but do not tape it. Deform the box, and the two top flaps will slide laterally >relative to one another. This is because no shear force can be transferred from >one to the other, so they move. Place some tape over the boundary between the >flaps on the top, and suddenly the shape of the box is locked. > > > From the description of what you say though, the doghouse and cockpit are not >in. So you still have free edges of deck sheets. To save yourself some tiny >deformation of the hull, which might manifest itself as a little up and down, >out of plane deflection in the deck edge where it is currently attached to >nothing, leave the cross brace in for a moment. Once something is welded to the >inner edge of the deck, something that is stiff in the up and down direction, >like the cabin sides and cockpit sides, there is less possibility of this >free-edge deflection. > > > The reason is, tack-welding sheets at sharp angles (like 70-110 degrees) it is >sort of like a lever. Every time one tacks in another sheet, essentially at >right angles to the previous one, the first sheet is stiffened greatly by the >in-plane stiffness of the second sheet. The small out-of-plane deflections of >the second sheet are the only degree of freedom left. The first sheet has very >little mechanical advantage over this degree of freedom (like a really short >lever) but can cause largish deflections with tremendous forces. The lever works >both ways though, the largish out of plane deflections of the second sheet's >free edge have a tremendous mechanical advantage over the rest of the hull. >Forcing that free edge straight takes a relatively small force through a largish >distance, and applies huge forces on the hull to deflect it very slightly, to >put its shape back to the deck-flat shape when the brace was in. > > > Therefore, when Brent was pulling inside the hull, with the decks on, he was >working at the hard end of the lever. > > > Flattening the decks by hand, while tacking in the cockpit sides and cabin >sides will not be as hard as deforming the hull, but might be more force than >one can apply with one hand while using the welder in the other. Leaving that >brace in until one has turned the second angle, on the deck, to the cockpit >sides and cabin sides, is like putting a lever on lever. Not only is the hull >more rigidly held, the deck free edge is no longer free and can't buckle out of >plane. Lastly, forcing the now free edge of the cockpit sides and cabin sides >right (assuming the brace is removed) may not be necessary, and will be far >easier because you are taking advantage of the mechanical advantage of the lever >*squared*. > > > This is likely too fine of a distinction for most. One more come-along will >solve a lot of problems, but I like things to line up like they are supposed to, >without having doubts of where that deflection is coming from. I also feel this >leads to a design with the minimum of built-in stress which just makes it >stronger relative to outside forces. So I would leave the brace in for now. For >practicality reasons, the entire dog house or cockpit might be constructed as a >unit, not on the boat, say in a garage, and then lifted into place as a unit. I >would leave the brace in until it is tacked down, just to keep the deck sheets >as flat as the day you tacked them down, and avoid uncertainty later. > > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:42:39 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"? > > > Once all the decks are on ,it is locked. We once tried to change it after all >the decks were on, and ended up breaking the handle off a 3 ton come along, >without moving it a sixteenth of an inch. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hello all ... > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, pulled >the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull by using a >winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near the centerline. > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the >transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all the decks >in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit and/or >cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but >naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap back >in! > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they are >awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a >"traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to be >a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the >ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24618|24523|2010-11-29 15:12:49|Matt Malone|Re: Strength of Orgami|This one maybe? http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachments/boat-design/18059d1199668116-steel-yacht-construction-steelhull.jpg http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/steel-yacht-construction-20860.html Yes, impressive. But the anvil will not always be round. On cannot rip a pop can over a round railing. Sometimes the rocks are pointy, leading to folds. Also, few freighters back up for a second run at it; whereas, waves and rocks, seldom is there just one bump. I am not talking about the really likely, but if one is talking the trouble to weld tons of steel, then why not put in a couple hundred more pounds to directly reinforcing the least reinforced point ? My argument is only to get the most out of the material. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: akenai@... Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:48:15 -0800 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Strength of Orgami Someone had a photo of a Swain boat that was T-Boned by a freighter and made it back to port. Aaron [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24619|24523|2010-11-29 15:39:02|Aaron Williams|Re: Strength of Orgami|That looks like it. I wonder how well aluminum would have survived?  Aarom ________________________________ From: Matt Malone To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 11:12:48 AM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Strength of Orgami   This one maybe? http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachments/boat-design/18059d1199668116-steel-yacht-construction-steelhull.jpg http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/steel-yacht-construction-20860.html Yes, impressive. But the anvil will not always be round. On cannot rip a pop can over a round railing. Sometimes the rocks are pointy, leading to folds. Also, few freighters back up for a second run at it; whereas, waves and rocks, seldom is there just one bump. I am not talking about the really likely, but if one is talking the trouble to weld tons of steel, then why not put in a couple hundred more pounds to directly reinforcing the least reinforced point ? My argument is only to get the most out of the material. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: akenai@... Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:48:15 -0800 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Strength of Orgami Someone had a photo of a Swain boat that was T-Boned by a freighter and made it back to port. Aaron [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24620|24523|2010-11-29 15:41:51|martin demers|Re: Strength of Orgami|or fiberglass...? lol... To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: akenai@... Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:39:00 -0800 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Strength of Orgami That looks like it. I wonder how well aluminum would have survived? Aarom ________________________________ From: Matt Malone To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, November 29, 2010 11:12:48 AM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Strength of Orgami This one maybe? http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachments/boat-design/18059d1199668116-steel-yacht-construction-steelhull.jpg http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/steel-yacht-construction-20860.html Yes, impressive. But the anvil will not always be round. On cannot rip a pop can over a round railing. Sometimes the rocks are pointy, leading to folds. Also, few freighters back up for a second run at it; whereas, waves and rocks, seldom is there just one bump. I am not talking about the really likely, but if one is talking the trouble to weld tons of steel, then why not put in a couple hundred more pounds to directly reinforcing the least reinforced point ? My argument is only to get the most out of the material. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: akenai@... Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:48:15 -0800 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Strength of Orgami Someone had a photo of a Swain boat that was T-Boned by a freighter and made it back to port. Aaron [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24621|24523|2010-11-29 16:01:33|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Strength of Orgami|This was, an entertaining, articulate, and well presented post, well done. I agree with all your engineering points, however I have an observation; Any strengthening of Brents origami hulls is totally unnecessary, according to 20 years empirical evidence, and maybe hundreds of thousands of hours of use in every conceivable condition. These are well-proven designs, by the ultimate no-argument-possible method of catastrophic hi-load crashes, on several hulls. No production fiberglass or wood boat would resist similar impact events, and in none of these has the hull design ever been the weak point. All steel hulls are a lot stronger than they need to be. Steel hull scantlings are extremely conservative, and far thicker than necessary. The Brent boats and these particular hulls are probably about 10x stronger than they need to be for normal use. So, I cannot see any need to spend unnecessary work in doing strengthening where none is needed. However, if someone feels the desire, it wont really hurt anything, I suppose, the additional mass, although high up, will simply lift your center of gravity by maybe a cm. Remember that these boats have survived being pounded on coral, full speed impacts with logs, containers, and t-boning other boats without even a leak. On the contrary, if someone wanted to do "better", making the hull plates slightly thinner would reduce mass, costs, lighten the boat, and make it go faster. I would not do so, as these are in the "sweet spot", nor am I advocating such, but the argument could well be made.| 24622|24523|2010-11-29 16:15:11|wild_explorer|Re: Strength of Orgami|I was thinking about making watertight compartment in this "side seam" area (one side connected to the hull another to the tank top - triangle instead of 2 angled plates). It will serve several purposes: - reinforce that area - keep hull watertight IF seam's welds (or tween keel welds) fail for some reasons - gives additional emergency buoyancy to the hull if it takes water It will not add much weight and reinforcement is needed in mid-area anyway. Watertight inspection ports need to be made as well in such compartment for maintenance/inspection. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > One possible failure mode of an orgami is a seam letting go. What is the danger of a seam letting go? The local stiffness of the hull goes down. The two plates are now not reinforcing each other the same way. With a reduction in stiffness, at the same force levels, the deflections increase, locally. The two plates can buckle. > | 24623|24523|2010-11-29 20:50:37|Tom Mann|Re: Strength of Orgami|Under deck edge gussets be carefull there they would need to connect on a deck beam and the bottom run down to the top stringer. Terminating the gussets on the hull plating would cause a hard spot that will crack the plating . Tom On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > This was " At what point is the hull shape "locked"? " In my last post, I > explained how sheets meeting at near-right angles (70-110 degrees) tend to > stiffen each other because they transfer shear flow. I also talked about > free edges, and how closing the box makes the box more stiff, and by certain > measures stronger. > > The engineer in me likes to tell the entire story, not just the best parts > of it. I have noted in various construction photos like this: > > http://theboat.smugmug.com/Boats/Kim/14192611_nezSR#1092933216_8sNrt > > That the deck and hull, and other near-right angle joints come together and > are welded. So long as everything is connected, and stays connected, the > orgami shell has egg-like stiffness, and maybe strength. The only thing > the orgami shape really guarantees is stiffness, and the hull might actually > be "brittle" meaning, really good stiffness, but no plasticity to speak of > at that stress level, really more of a buckling-like loss of strength until > there is some secondary reinforcement after partial collapse. > > Take an empty aluminium pop can for instance. If one is careful, a 200 lb > man can balance on one, but once it starts to go, it quickly crushes down > to one third or less of its height. This buckling is a brittle behaviour of > the structure, even though the material is very tough. Once crushed down, > the crush of the can starts to reinforce the can again, and the collapse > stops. If one is balanced on a can and a second person very carefully > touches the side of the can with something like the eraser end of a pencil, > the can's collapse will occur immediately. Buckling is unstable and leads > to brittle-like failures of structures. > > In a frame-design boat, there is a lot more steel in the frames, at > stations down the length of the boat. Buckling is different -- there is a > lot of inter-frame buckling, and frames can prevent buckles from involving > the entire hull. If one has seen a lot of pictures of old freighters, then > one is used to seeing the golf-ball dimpling effect of inter-frame buckling > on old rusty freighters that have pounded in waves. > > > http://my.qoop.com/store/Photogenic-Asia---Royalty-Free-Images-3201258271360100/Old-Freighter-by-Shi-Yali-qpps_9751215685575943/ > > The frames also experience more stiffening as buckling proceeds than a > skin-hull would. Placing all of the weight of the steel in the skin > certainly creates greater initial stiffness, but gives up the reinforcing > properties of frames once buckling starts. > > One possible failure mode of an orgami is a seam letting go. What is the > danger of a seam letting go? The local stiffness of the hull goes down. > The two plates are now not reinforcing each other the same way. With a > reduction in stiffness, at the same force levels, the deflections increase, > locally. The two plates can buckle. Take a 2 liter cardboard milk > container with a plastic screw-top. Cut a 2cm long cut in along one of the > edges of the carton half way down the side. Compare it to a similar > container with no cut. If one compresses the container end-to-end, the cut > may open up like eyelids. > > With increased deflections, the local stresses at the part of the seam that > is still holding on, immediately adjacent to the opening, increase. If the > stresses are cyclic, like from a sea, the seam can flex back and forth -- > like a coat hanger -- a particular section of seam can fatigue in just a few > cycles and the seam separation can advance. The more it advances, the less > stiff the hull becomes and the more it deflects, and the more force at that > part of the seam still just holding on. If an orgami seam starts to go, it > can zipper a little more with each wave. > > Now, steel vs. fibreglass (real mat fibreglass not chop-spray boats): No > comparison, the steel is stronger, but the joints might not be stronger. > Try breaking a coathanger. Try breaking a 3/16" rod of fibreglass. Also, > fibreglass, a much less stiff material to start out with, that is made > thicker, so would tend to create less stress concentration. Also, > fibreglass mat layups are very resistant to zippering, they hinge and fray, > but tend not to zipper. Where would this be better ? Probably nowhere in > practicality, this is not an argument for fibreglass boats, just an > observation of how a much weaker material is exploited well to get good over > all properties for a hull. Therefore much greater hull strength should be > possible with steel. > > After looking at the construction photos of several orgamis, I see a flat > deck meeting a flat topsides. Both are stiff in-plane, and both are > stiffened by the other out of plane, but the stiffening of the joint in flex > comes from 3 dimensional effects. A more direct stiffening might be used, > using gusset plates, or internal webs. Here is a web page that talks about > gusset plates on a beam structure. > > http://www.strand7.com/html/Webnotes/Gusset.htm > > These gussets , or small mini-frames if you will, might be welding into > inside corners on the inside of the hull. They would contribute slightly to > stiffness of the boat, however, they contribute significantly to > "toughness". Once a boat buckles, these frames have to stretch a lot, and > keep stretching the more it buckles. Also, if a seam starts to let go, the > opening might easily stop at a gusset web. > > Each gusset might weigh a pound or two, and welding in one every foot on > all interior corners, would add about 100-200 pounds to the weight of a 26' > boat. Maybe every 2 feet would work almost as well. Don't know, have not > run the numbers. > > An orgami without gussets, looking at a seam opening problem should look to > the construction methods -- get a chain-winch across the gap to hold it > closed (reduce deflections which would reduce the tendency for a seam to > run), and rejoin the edges ASAP to re-establish shear flow. > > I am not suggesting an orgami might spontaneously peel like a banana, > however there is no reason not to invest a small amount of weight, and time, > and probably no new material (gussets might come from scraps) putting direct > stiffness into one aspect of the orgami hull -- seam hinging -- and at the > same time, provide stop-points for seam failures. Gussets would add to the > forces needed to continue buckling that initially stiff steel shell. > Providing more capacity to continue carrying loads after the hull begins to > yield is a type of toughness. Gussets would seem to confer more of the > steel's natural strength and toughness to the overall hull shape at very > small cost. > > I also like the idea of bulkheads, 2 or more of them, to divide the volume > up to make flooding, fire, etc a local problem to one section. Bulkheads > need not be really thick steel since one might see and paint both sides > regularly. But bulkheads are an entirely different measure to gussets. > > Matt > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > That makes sense. Thin sheet structures gain stiffness by curvature, > yes, but also connectedness. The connectedness allows shear loads to be > transferred from one panel to the next. Try it with a standard 8-flap > cardboard box (4 flaps on the bottom, 4 on the top). Close the bottom well, > with tape. Fold the top shut but do not tape it. Deform the box, and the > two top flaps will slide laterally relative to one another. This is because > no shear force can be transferred from one to the other, so they move. > Place some tape over the boundary between the flaps on the top, and suddenly > the shape of the box is locked. > > > > > > From the description of what you say though, the doghouse and cockpit are > not in. So you still have free edges of deck sheets. To save yourself > some tiny deformation of the hull, which might manifest itself as a little > up and down, out of plane deflection in the deck edge where it is currently > attached to nothing, leave the cross brace in for a moment. Once something > is welded to the inner edge of the deck, something that is stiff in the up > and down direction, like the cabin sides and cockpit sides, there is less > possibility of this free-edge deflection. > > > > > > The reason is, tack-welding sheets at sharp angles (like 70-110 degrees) > it is sort of like a lever. Every time one tacks in another sheet, > essentially at right angles to the previous one, the first sheet is > stiffened greatly by the in-plane stiffness of the second sheet. The small > out-of-plane deflections of the second sheet are the only degree of freedom > left. The first sheet has very little mechanical advantage over this degree > of freedom (like a really short lever) but can cause largish deflections > with tremendous forces. The lever works both ways though, the largish out > of plane deflections of the second sheet's free edge have a tremendous > mechanical advantage over the rest of the hull. Forcing that free edge > straight takes a relatively small force through a largish distance, and > applies huge forces on the hull to deflect it very slightly, to put its > shape back to the deck-flat shape when the brace was in. > > > > > > Therefore, when Brent was pulling inside the hull, with the decks on, he > was working at the hard end of the lever. > > > > > > Flattening the decks by hand, while tacking in the cockpit sides and > cabin sides will not be as hard as deforming the hull, but might be more > force than one can apply with one hand while using the welder in the other. > Leaving that brace in until one has turned the second angle, on the deck, > to the cockpit sides and cabin sides, is like putting a lever on lever. > Not only is the hull more rigidly held, the deck free edge is no longer free > and can't buckle out of plane. Lastly, forcing the now free edge of the > cockpit sides and cabin sides right (assuming the brace is removed) may not > be necessary, and will be far easier because you are taking advantage of the > mechanical advantage of the lever *squared*. > > > > > > This is likely too fine of a distinction for most. One more come-along > will solve a lot of problems, but I like things to line up like they are > supposed to, without having doubts of where that deflection is coming from. > I also feel this leads to a design with the minimum of built-in stress > which just makes it stronger relative to outside forces. So I would leave > the brace in for now. For practicality reasons, the entire dog house or > cockpit might be constructed as a unit, not on the boat, say in a garage, > and then lifted into place as a unit. I would leave the brace in until it > is tacked down, just to keep the deck sheets as flat as the day you tacked > them down, and avoid uncertainty later. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@... > > > Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:42:39 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"? > > > > > > > > > > > Once all the decks are on ,it is locked. We once tried to change it > after all the decks were on, and ended up breaking the handle off a 3 ton > come along, without moving it a sixteenth of an inch. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, > pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull > by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near > the centerline. > > > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the > transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all > the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit > and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but > naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap > back in! > > > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they > are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a > "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to > be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the > ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24624|24523|2010-11-29 21:22:49|Matt Malone|Re: Strength of Orgami|Absolutely a crack is possible, but this means the gussets would be holding a lot of load, which means they would be helping hold the boat more rigid than it otherwise would have been. Yes, they might have to be interfaced to a deck beam or a stress-spreading pad. Alternately, the gussets might look like the four bits left after one cuts a circle out of a square plate. With the gussets tapered in this way, it would spread the discontinuity of strain. In a catastrophic collision, it is possible the gussets would cause rip-outs or punch-throughs on the deck or topsides. In this way, the deck and topsides absorb more tearing energy. It seems to me it is better that gussets hold that load over inches of interface, instead of a seam over fractions of a an inch of interface in cross-section. If there truly is so much hinging load and displacement at these seams, then better than it not be taken by the seams in a hinging motion over and over. I agree, interfaces and load spreading is a concern with gussets that are doing something beneficial in ordinary loading, Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: tazmannm@... Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:50:35 -0800 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Strength of Orgami Under deck edge gussets be carefull there they would need to connect on a deck beam and the bottom run down to the top stringer. Terminating the gussets on the hull plating would cause a hard spot that will crack the plating . Tom On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > This was " At what point is the hull shape "locked"? " In my last post, I > explained how sheets meeting at near-right angles (70-110 degrees) tend to > stiffen each other because they transfer shear flow. I also talked about > free edges, and how closing the box makes the box more stiff, and by certain > measures stronger. > > The engineer in me likes to tell the entire story, not just the best parts > of it. I have noted in various construction photos like this: > > http://theboat.smugmug.com/Boats/Kim/14192611_nezSR#1092933216_8sNrt > > That the deck and hull, and other near-right angle joints come together and > are welded. So long as everything is connected, and stays connected, the > orgami shell has egg-like stiffness, and maybe strength. The only thing > the orgami shape really guarantees is stiffness, and the hull might actually > be "brittle" meaning, really good stiffness, but no plasticity to speak of > at that stress level, really more of a buckling-like loss of strength until > there is some secondary reinforcement after partial collapse. > > Take an empty aluminium pop can for instance. If one is careful, a 200 lb > man can balance on one, but once it starts to go, it quickly crushes down > to one third or less of its height. This buckling is a brittle behaviour of > the structure, even though the material is very tough. Once crushed down, > the crush of the can starts to reinforce the can again, and the collapse > stops. If one is balanced on a can and a second person very carefully > touches the side of the can with something like the eraser end of a pencil, > the can's collapse will occur immediately. Buckling is unstable and leads > to brittle-like failures of structures. > > In a frame-design boat, there is a lot more steel in the frames, at > stations down the length of the boat. Buckling is different -- there is a > lot of inter-frame buckling, and frames can prevent buckles from involving > the entire hull. If one has seen a lot of pictures of old freighters, then > one is used to seeing the golf-ball dimpling effect of inter-frame buckling > on old rusty freighters that have pounded in waves. > > > http://my.qoop.com/store/Photogenic-Asia---Royalty-Free-Images-3201258271360100/Old-Freighter-by-Shi-Yali-qpps_9751215685575943/ > > The frames also experience more stiffening as buckling proceeds than a > skin-hull would. Placing all of the weight of the steel in the skin > certainly creates greater initial stiffness, but gives up the reinforcing > properties of frames once buckling starts. > > One possible failure mode of an orgami is a seam letting go. What is the > danger of a seam letting go? The local stiffness of the hull goes down. > The two plates are now not reinforcing each other the same way. With a > reduction in stiffness, at the same force levels, the deflections increase, > locally. The two plates can buckle. Take a 2 liter cardboard milk > container with a plastic screw-top. Cut a 2cm long cut in along one of the > edges of the carton half way down the side. Compare it to a similar > container with no cut. If one compresses the container end-to-end, the cut > may open up like eyelids. > > With increased deflections, the local stresses at the part of the seam that > is still holding on, immediately adjacent to the opening, increase. If the > stresses are cyclic, like from a sea, the seam can flex back and forth -- > like a coat hanger -- a particular section of seam can fatigue in just a few > cycles and the seam separation can advance. The more it advances, the less > stiff the hull becomes and the more it deflects, and the more force at that > part of the seam still just holding on. If an orgami seam starts to go, it > can zipper a little more with each wave. > > Now, steel vs. fibreglass (real mat fibreglass not chop-spray boats): No > comparison, the steel is stronger, but the joints might not be stronger. > Try breaking a coathanger. Try breaking a 3/16" rod of fibreglass. Also, > fibreglass, a much less stiff material to start out with, that is made > thicker, so would tend to create less stress concentration. Also, > fibreglass mat layups are very resistant to zippering, they hinge and fray, > but tend not to zipper. Where would this be better ? Probably nowhere in > practicality, this is not an argument for fibreglass boats, just an > observation of how a much weaker material is exploited well to get good over > all properties for a hull. Therefore much greater hull strength should be > possible with steel. > > After looking at the construction photos of several orgamis, I see a flat > deck meeting a flat topsides. Both are stiff in-plane, and both are > stiffened by the other out of plane, but the stiffening of the joint in flex > comes from 3 dimensional effects. A more direct stiffening might be used, > using gusset plates, or internal webs. Here is a web page that talks about > gusset plates on a beam structure. > > http://www.strand7.com/html/Webnotes/Gusset.htm > > These gussets , or small mini-frames if you will, might be welding into > inside corners on the inside of the hull. They would contribute slightly to > stiffness of the boat, however, they contribute significantly to > "toughness". Once a boat buckles, these frames have to stretch a lot, and > keep stretching the more it buckles. Also, if a seam starts to let go, the > opening might easily stop at a gusset web. > > Each gusset might weigh a pound or two, and welding in one every foot on > all interior corners, would add about 100-200 pounds to the weight of a 26' > boat. Maybe every 2 feet would work almost as well. Don't know, have not > run the numbers. > > An orgami without gussets, looking at a seam opening problem should look to > the construction methods -- get a chain-winch across the gap to hold it > closed (reduce deflections which would reduce the tendency for a seam to > run), and rejoin the edges ASAP to re-establish shear flow. > > I am not suggesting an orgami might spontaneously peel like a banana, > however there is no reason not to invest a small amount of weight, and time, > and probably no new material (gussets might come from scraps) putting direct > stiffness into one aspect of the orgami hull -- seam hinging -- and at the > same time, provide stop-points for seam failures. Gussets would add to the > forces needed to continue buckling that initially stiff steel shell. > Providing more capacity to continue carrying loads after the hull begins to > yield is a type of toughness. Gussets would seem to confer more of the > steel's natural strength and toughness to the overall hull shape at very > small cost. > > I also like the idea of bulkheads, 2 or more of them, to divide the volume > up to make flooding, fire, etc a local problem to one section. Bulkheads > need not be really thick steel since one might see and paint both sides > regularly. But bulkheads are an entirely different measure to gussets. > > Matt > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > That makes sense. Thin sheet structures gain stiffness by curvature, > yes, but also connectedness. The connectedness allows shear loads to be > transferred from one panel to the next. Try it with a standard 8-flap > cardboard box (4 flaps on the bottom, 4 on the top). Close the bottom well, > with tape. Fold the top shut but do not tape it. Deform the box, and the > two top flaps will slide laterally relative to one another. This is because > no shear force can be transferred from one to the other, so they move. > Place some tape over the boundary between the flaps on the top, and suddenly > the shape of the box is locked. > > > > > > From the description of what you say though, the doghouse and cockpit are > not in. So you still have free edges of deck sheets. To save yourself > some tiny deformation of the hull, which might manifest itself as a little > up and down, out of plane deflection in the deck edge where it is currently > attached to nothing, leave the cross brace in for a moment. Once something > is welded to the inner edge of the deck, something that is stiff in the up > and down direction, like the cabin sides and cockpit sides, there is less > possibility of this free-edge deflection. > > > > > > The reason is, tack-welding sheets at sharp angles (like 70-110 degrees) > it is sort of like a lever. Every time one tacks in another sheet, > essentially at right angles to the previous one, the first sheet is > stiffened greatly by the in-plane stiffness of the second sheet. The small > out-of-plane deflections of the second sheet are the only degree of freedom > left. The first sheet has very little mechanical advantage over this degree > of freedom (like a really short lever) but can cause largish deflections > with tremendous forces. The lever works both ways though, the largish out > of plane deflections of the second sheet's free edge have a tremendous > mechanical advantage over the rest of the hull. Forcing that free edge > straight takes a relatively small force through a largish distance, and > applies huge forces on the hull to deflect it very slightly, to put its > shape back to the deck-flat shape when the brace was in. > > > > > > Therefore, when Brent was pulling inside the hull, with the decks on, he > was working at the hard end of the lever. > > > > > > Flattening the decks by hand, while tacking in the cockpit sides and > cabin sides will not be as hard as deforming the hull, but might be more > force than one can apply with one hand while using the welder in the other. > Leaving that brace in until one has turned the second angle, on the deck, > to the cockpit sides and cabin sides, is like putting a lever on lever. > Not only is the hull more rigidly held, the deck free edge is no longer free > and can't buckle out of plane. Lastly, forcing the now free edge of the > cockpit sides and cabin sides right (assuming the brace is removed) may not > be necessary, and will be far easier because you are taking advantage of the > mechanical advantage of the lever *squared*. > > > > > > This is likely too fine of a distinction for most. One more come-along > will solve a lot of problems, but I like things to line up like they are > supposed to, without having doubts of where that deflection is coming from. > I also feel this leads to a design with the minimum of built-in stress > which just makes it stronger relative to outside forces. So I would leave > the brace in for now. For practicality reasons, the entire dog house or > cockpit might be constructed as a unit, not on the boat, say in a garage, > and then lifted into place as a unit. I would leave the brace in until it > is tacked down, just to keep the deck sheets as flat as the day you tacked > them down, and avoid uncertainty later. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@... > > > Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:42:39 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"? > > > > > > > > > > > Once all the decks are on ,it is locked. We once tried to change it > after all the decks were on, and ended up breaking the handle off a 3 ton > come along, without moving it a sixteenth of an inch. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, > pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull > by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near > the centerline. > > > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the > transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all > the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit > and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but > naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap > back in! > > > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they > are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a > "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to > be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the > ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24625|24571|2010-11-30 19:34:45|Ben Okopnik|Re: Alu hull in Origami|On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:06:39PM -0000, jhess314 wrote: > Ben > I agree that the marine alloys are very competitive with steel for > boat building. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. That's not exactly what I said or implied - I simply mentioned that some aluminum alloys are in the same strength range as steel. In terms of amateur boat-building, though, I don't think that any aluminum alloy can come near providing the ease, convenience, flexibility, or workability of steel. > It's very easy to cut up aluminum sheet on the ground with a > carbide-blade power saw -- far easier and with less distortion than > cutting steel with a torch. And many other common woodworking tools > can be used as well, which reducing the amount of expensive > steel-working tools one has to acquire. I can't say that I know of any expensive steel-working tools that are necessary for building a boat - and certainly none where the equivalent for working in aluminum wouldn't be more expensive (usually much more expensive.) What, other than a buzzbox, a propane torch, some grinders, and some comealongs, do you see as both necessary and expensive for building a steel boat? > And you don't have to worry > about rain rusting the aluminum -- either before or after the boat is > built. No need to paint an aluminum boat, either inside or out, > except for anti-fouling. Which is quite a challenge in itself. I have a few friends with aluminum boats, and not only do they trouble finding appropriate paint these days - one of them has to sail to Columbia just to have access to the good stuff - but they also have to go through all sorts of arcane rituals to get it to stick. > Not having to paint a boat is a big savings, > both in initial cost as well as in ongoing maintenance. Also, while > the cost/pound of aluminum is three times higher than for mild steel, > you don't need nearly as many pounds of aluminum as steel to build a > boat. That's an interesting statement - especially since every claim to aluminum being as strong as steel inevitably begins with "pound for pound, ..." Given that, your statement implies that aluminum boats aren't as strong as steel ones - since there are fewer pounds involved. (As I understand it, in practice, that's not true; aluminum hulls usually end up weighing about the same as steel ones. The whole point is that you can use heavier-gauge aluminum to reach about the same strength.) > I'm curious what I said, or didn't say, which led you to write "given > the demonstrated level of knowledge by the person asking the original > question...he has little if any experience with metalworking in > general." It just seemed, based on the kind of questions that you were asking, that you weren't very familiar with the pertinent issues. My apologies if I was mistaken. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24626|24571|2010-12-01 09:02:38|jhess314|Re: Alu hull in Origami|Ben, There is absolutely no question that steel can be a fine boatbuilding material. But given that there are tens of thousands of well-built aluminum boats, from canoes and dinghies, to commercial vessels, to military ships, I think that there should also be no question that aluminum can be an excellent boat hull material. Even Bernard Moitessier stated he thought the next boat he built might be in aluminum. A search on the web shows that there are a number of successful amateur-built aluminum boats in existence. Amazon sells books on making boats out of aluminum. I'll have to admit that I was quite surprised at the number of folks on this forum who scoffed at the idea of an amateur-built aluminum boat, and who didn't realize how easy it is to machine aluminum -- much easier than machining mild steel -- though welding aluminum is a little bit harder (but not much, with a good machine). Anyway, my original question was for suggestions on how to design _any_ origami hull -- steel or aluminum. It appears that you need either very sophisticated software, or that you make models by trial and error. Someone suggest that the sections of an origami hull are made up of sections of cylinders, cones, and sheets, with some small areas of compound curves. Is there a manual way, that a draftsman might use, to work backwards from a hull concept to an origami flat panel? Thanks to all for your suggestions. John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:06:39PM -0000, jhess314 wrote: > > Ben > > I agree that the marine alloys are very competitive with steel for > > boat building. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. > > That's not exactly what I said or implied - I simply mentioned that some > aluminum alloys are in the same strength range as steel. In terms of > amateur boat-building, though, I don't think that any aluminum alloy can > come near providing the ease, convenience, flexibility, or workability > of steel. > > > It's very easy to cut up aluminum sheet on the ground with a > > carbide-blade power saw -- far easier and with less distortion than > > cutting steel with a torch. And many other common woodworking tools > > can be used as well, which reducing the amount of expensive > > steel-working tools one has to acquire. > > I can't say that I know of any expensive steel-working tools that are > necessary for building a boat - and certainly none where the equivalent > for working in aluminum wouldn't be more expensive (usually much more > expensive.) What, other than a buzzbox, a propane torch, some grinders, > and some comealongs, do you see as both necessary and expensive for > building a steel boat? > > > And you don't have to worry > > about rain rusting the aluminum -- either before or after the boat is > > built. No need to paint an aluminum boat, either inside or out, > > except for anti-fouling. > > Which is quite a challenge in itself. I have a few friends with aluminum > boats, and not only do they trouble finding appropriate paint these days > - one of them has to sail to Columbia just to have access to the good > stuff - but they also have to go through all sorts of arcane rituals to > get it to stick. > > > Not having to paint a boat is a big savings, > > both in initial cost as well as in ongoing maintenance. Also, while > > the cost/pound of aluminum is three times higher than for mild steel, > > you don't need nearly as many pounds of aluminum as steel to build a > > boat. > > That's an interesting statement - especially since every claim to > aluminum being as strong as steel inevitably begins with "pound for > pound, ..." Given that, your statement implies that aluminum boats > aren't as strong as steel ones - since there are fewer pounds involved. > > (As I understand it, in practice, that's not true; aluminum hulls > usually end up weighing about the same as steel ones. The whole point is > that you can use heavier-gauge aluminum to reach about the same > strength.) > > > I'm curious what I said, or didn't say, which led you to write "given > > the demonstrated level of knowledge by the person asking the original > > question...he has little if any experience with metalworking in > > general." > > It just seemed, based on the kind of questions that you were asking, > that you weren't very familiar with the pertinent issues. My apologies > if I was mistaken. > > | 24627|24571|2010-12-01 11:24:34|Aaron Williams|Re: Alu hull in Origami|John Look up Gerd in the search menu he had a neet way of explaining how to develope an Origami design. Aaron  ________________________________ From: jhess314 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, December 1, 2010 5:02:29 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Alu hull in Origami   Ben, There is absolutely no question that steel can be a fine boatbuilding material. But given that there are tens of thousands of well-built aluminum boats, from canoes and dinghies, to commercial vessels, to military ships, I think that there should also be no question that aluminum can be an excellent boat hull material. Even Bernard Moitessier stated he thought the next boat he built might be in aluminum. A search on the web shows that there are a number of successful amateur-built aluminum boats in existence. Amazon sells books on making boats out of aluminum. I'll have to admit that I was quite surprised at the number of folks on this forum who scoffed at the idea of an amateur-built aluminum boat, and who didn't realize how easy it is to machine aluminum -- much easier than machining mild steel -- though welding aluminum is a little bit harder (but not much, with a good machine). Anyway, my original question was for suggestions on how to design _any_ origami hull -- steel or aluminum. It appears that you need either very sophisticated software, or that you make models by trial and error. Someone suggest that the sections of an origami hull are made up of sections of cylinders, cones, and sheets, with some small areas of compound curves. Is there a manual way, that a draftsman might use, to work backwards from a hull concept to an origami flat panel? Thanks to all for your suggestions. John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:06:39PM -0000, jhess314 wrote: > > Ben > > I agree that the marine alloys are very competitive with steel for > > boat building. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. > > That's not exactly what I said or implied - I simply mentioned that some > aluminum alloys are in the same strength range as steel. In terms of > amateur boat-building, though, I don't think that any aluminum alloy can > come near providing the ease, convenience, flexibility, or workability > of steel. > > > It's very easy to cut up aluminum sheet on the ground with a > > carbide-blade power saw -- far easier and with less distortion than > > cutting steel with a torch. And many other common woodworking tools > > can be used as well, which reducing the amount of expensive > > steel-working tools one has to acquire. > > I can't say that I know of any expensive steel-working tools that are > necessary for building a boat - and certainly none where the equivalent > for working in aluminum wouldn't be more expensive (usually much more > expensive.) What, other than a buzzbox, a propane torch, some grinders, > and some comealongs, do you see as both necessary and expensive for > building a steel boat? > > > And you don't have to worry > > about rain rusting the aluminum -- either before or after the boat is > > built. No need to paint an aluminum boat, either inside or out, > > except for anti-fouling. > > Which is quite a challenge in itself. I have a few friends with aluminum > boats, and not only do they trouble finding appropriate paint these days > - one of them has to sail to Columbia just to have access to the good > stuff - but they also have to go through all sorts of arcane rituals to > get it to stick. > > > Not having to paint a boat is a big savings, > > both in initial cost as well as in ongoing maintenance. Also, while > > the cost/pound of aluminum is three times higher than for mild steel, > > you don't need nearly as many pounds of aluminum as steel to build a > > boat. > > That's an interesting statement - especially since every claim to > aluminum being as strong as steel inevitably begins with "pound for > pound, ..." Given that, your statement implies that aluminum boats > aren't as strong as steel ones - since there are fewer pounds involved. > > (As I understand it, in practice, that's not true; aluminum hulls > usually end up weighing about the same as steel ones. The whole point is > that you can use heavier-gauge aluminum to reach about the same > strength.) > > > I'm curious what I said, or didn't say, which led you to write "given > > the demonstrated level of knowledge by the person asking the original > > question...he has little if any experience with metalworking in > > general." > > It just seemed, based on the kind of questions that you were asking, > that you weren't very familiar with the pertinent issues. My apologies > if I was mistaken. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24628|24571|2010-12-01 12:27:55|wild_explorer|Re: Alu hull in Origami|John, you are mixing several questions again. I agree, Alu or Steel (or any other) is PERSONAL preferences and if you already have preferred material, there is no reason to discuss pro/cons of such material. Complex strength calculations are needed for such complex structure as trimaran. Or did you change you mind towards single hull? Software... Do you have hull form or do you want to start from scratch? Are we talking about FREE 3-D software or you willing to spend X amount of money on it? If program has wide range of export/import functions from/to others 3-D formats it will be very useful. TouchCad (not free) gives hull pattern (for any kind of hull) and change it in real time (if you change hull's lines), but I do not like it for some reasons. And pattern might need some "finishing" too. Manual method... Brent gave very good method how to make pattern manually from available hull you like. Try to choose you hull first and see if it can be done in origami with minor adjustments(using compass). --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > Anyway, my original question was for suggestions on how to design _any_ origami hull -- steel or aluminum. It appears that you need either very sophisticated software, or that you make models by trial and error. Someone suggest that the sections of an origami hull are made up of sections of cylinders, cones, and sheets, with some small areas of compound curves. Is there a manual way, that a draftsman might use, to work backwards from a hull concept to an origami flat panel? > > Thanks to all for your suggestions. > > John | 24629|24571|2010-12-01 13:44:19|Gord Schnell|Re: Alu hull in Origami|Hey John.....why don't you just buy Brent Swains Plans and then you won't have to reinvent the already invented "Origami Boat" Gord On 1-Dec-10, at 6:02 AM, jhess314 wrote: > Ben, > > There is absolutely no question that steel can be a fine > boatbuilding material. But given that there are tens of thousands of > well-built aluminum boats, from canoes and dinghies, to commercial > vessels, to military ships, I think that there should also be no > question that aluminum can be an excellent boat hull material. Even > Bernard Moitessier stated he thought the next boat he built might be > in aluminum. > > A search on the web shows that there are a number of successful > amateur-built aluminum boats in existence. Amazon sells books on > making boats out of aluminum. I'll have to admit that I was quite > surprised at the number of folks on this forum who scoffed at the > idea of an amateur-built aluminum boat, and who didn't realize how > easy it is to machine aluminum -- much easier than machining mild > steel -- though welding aluminum is a little bit harder (but not > much, with a good machine). > > Anyway, my original question was for suggestions on how to design > _any_ origami hull -- steel or aluminum. It appears that you need > either very sophisticated software, or that you make models by trial > and error. Someone suggest that the sections of an origami hull are > made up of sections of cylinders, cones, and sheets, with some small > areas of compound curves. Is there a manual way, that a draftsman > might use, to work backwards from a hull concept to an origami flat > panel? > > Thanks to all for your suggestions. > > John > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:06:39PM -0000, jhess314 wrote: > > > Ben > > > I agree that the marine alloys are very competitive with steel for > > > boat building. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. > > > > That's not exactly what I said or implied - I simply mentioned > that some > > aluminum alloys are in the same strength range as steel. In terms of > > amateur boat-building, though, I don't think that any aluminum > alloy can > > come near providing the ease, convenience, flexibility, or > workability > > of steel. > > > > > It's very easy to cut up aluminum sheet on the ground with a > > > carbide-blade power saw -- far easier and with less distortion > than > > > cutting steel with a torch. And many other common woodworking > tools > > > can be used as well, which reducing the amount of expensive > > > steel-working tools one has to acquire. > > > > I can't say that I know of any expensive steel-working tools that > are > > necessary for building a boat - and certainly none where the > equivalent > > for working in aluminum wouldn't be more expensive (usually much > more > > expensive.) What, other than a buzzbox, a propane torch, some > grinders, > > and some comealongs, do you see as both necessary and expensive for > > building a steel boat? > > > > > And you don't have to worry > > > about rain rusting the aluminum -- either before or after the > boat is > > > built. No need to paint an aluminum boat, either inside or out, > > > except for anti-fouling. > > > > Which is quite a challenge in itself. I have a few friends with > aluminum > > boats, and not only do they trouble finding appropriate paint > these days > > - one of them has to sail to Columbia just to have access to the > good > > stuff - but they also have to go through all sorts of arcane > rituals to > > get it to stick. > > > > > Not having to paint a boat is a big savings, > > > both in initial cost as well as in ongoing maintenance. Also, > while > > > the cost/pound of aluminum is three times higher than for mild > steel, > > > you don't need nearly as many pounds of aluminum as steel to > build a > > > boat. > > > > That's an interesting statement - especially since every claim to > > aluminum being as strong as steel inevitably begins with "pound for > > pound, ..." Given that, your statement implies that aluminum boats > > aren't as strong as steel ones - since there are fewer pounds > involved. > > > > (As I understand it, in practice, that's not true; aluminum hulls > > usually end up weighing about the same as steel ones. The whole > point is > > that you can use heavier-gauge aluminum to reach about the same > > strength.) > > > > > I'm curious what I said, or didn't say, which led you to write > "given > > > the demonstrated level of knowledge by the person asking the > original > > > question...he has little if any experience with metalworking in > > > general." > > > > It just seemed, based on the kind of questions that you were asking, > > that you weren't very familiar with the pertinent issues. My > apologies > > if I was mistaken. > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24630|24571|2010-12-01 16:06:14|jhess314|Re: Alu hull in Origami|Aaron, Thanks for directing me to Gerd and his Yago project. From his project manual I'm getting an idea of his way to design an origami hull. I'm also getting good ideas from posts by Greg Elliott of origamimagic.com. It appears that he's developed or adapted software to design an origami hull from any other hull. Gerd's Yago hulls have two chines with a flat (or nearly so) bottom. That's getting closer to what I am looking for. I've requested the blueprints for his Yago 31. Maybe that hull will be a good departure point for what I want. Thanks again, John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > John > > Look up Gerd in the search menu he had a neet way of explaining how to develope > an Origami design. > > Aaron  > > | 24631|24571|2010-12-01 16:31:09|jhess314|Re: Alu hull in Origami|Wild, My primary question has always been how to design a hull using the origami technique. It was you, I believe, who wanted to know what type of boat I was wanting to build. When I mentioned "aluminum" it generated a whole lot of comments not germane to my original question. However, for the type of boat I am thinking about (a trimaran), it is absolutely NOT a personal preference as to whether I build in aluminum or steel. All multihulls (catamarans or trimarans) are very sensitive to weight. Multihull designers work very hard to craft strong, lightweight boats, often out of advanced composite materials. My suggestion of building a relatively small trimaran out of aluminum would strike some multihull designers as heading in the wrong direction. Building one out of steel is unthinkable, even for me :) I agree that designing a trimaran is much more complex than designing a monohull. I am not interested in purchasing expensive design software. I've had fun playing around with Delftship, but I'm not a naval engineer. If I decide to take this beyond the concept stage I will ask an experienced trimaran designer for advice. I purchased Brent's book "How to Build a Better Steel Boat" and was disappointed that there was little mention of how to design the flat plates. You mentioned that he has given a very good method to make a pattern manually. Can you direct me to that explanation? Thank you, John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > John, you are mixing several questions again. I agree, Alu or Steel (or any other) is PERSONAL preferences and if you already have preferred material, there is no reason to discuss pro/cons of such material. > > Complex strength calculations are needed for such complex structure as trimaran. Or did you change you mind towards single hull? > > Software... Do you have hull form or do you want to start from scratch? Are we talking about FREE 3-D software or you willing to spend X amount of money on it? If program has wide range of export/import functions from/to others 3-D formats it will be very useful. > > TouchCad (not free) gives hull pattern (for any kind of hull) and change it in real time (if you change hull's lines), but I do not like it for some reasons. And pattern might need some "finishing" too. > > Manual method... Brent gave very good method how to make pattern manually from available hull you like. > > Try to choose you hull first and see if it can be done in origami with minor adjustments(using compass). > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > > > Anyway, my original question was for suggestions on how to design _any_ origami hull -- steel or aluminum. It appears that you need either very sophisticated software, or that you make models by trial and error. Someone suggest that the sections of an origami hull are made up of sections of cylinders, cones, and sheets, with some small areas of compound curves. Is there a manual way, that a draftsman might use, to work backwards from a hull concept to an origami flat panel? > > > > Thanks to all for your suggestions. > > > > John > | 24632|24571|2010-12-01 16:38:24|jhess314|Re: Alu hull in Origami|Gord, The hull shape of monohulls are generally considered to be too fat for multihulls. Monohull length to breadth ratio is often in the range of 3:1. Trimarans may be 8:1 or 9:1. Catamarans around 10:1. So I can't use any of Brent's designs "as is". Did you ever measure the thickness of the shim material you used in your boat model? And what was the length of your model? Thank you, John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > Hey John.....why don't you just buy Brent Swains Plans and then you > won't have to reinvent the already invented "Origami Boat" > Gord > | 24633|24571|2010-12-01 18:27:47|wild_explorer|Re: 3D concept modeling of origami hull (was: Alu hull in Origami).|John, Type of the hull and materials you are going to use DOES make the difference. With your clarification, it is now easier to answer your questions. As I understand, you want to do 3-D concept (long narrow hull) modeling for NON-stretchable composite material (ready to use fiberglass/carbon_fiber sheets or whatever). Probably, you already have some modeling done in DelftShip and you want to continue to do your concept modeling for free. At this case, trial version of TouchCad should work for you just fine. You can use your hull lines from DeltShip. I will not go into details here (it will be boring for most people). Send me e-mail if you have troubles to figure out how to do it. But try hard to do it by yourself first ;)) This modeling will not be enough to make real boat, but good enough for concept modeling. Brent's method of creating pattern will not work for non-stretchable materials - you need to do precise 3-D modeling. His advice was in this group not so long ago, but it was about how to make pattern from real boat's hull. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > Wild, > > My primary question has always been how to design a hull using the origami technique. It was you, I believe, who wanted to know what type of boat I was wanting to build. When I mentioned "aluminum" it generated a whole lot of comments not germane to my original question. > > However, for the type of boat I am thinking about (a trimaran), it is absolutely NOT a personal preference as to whether I build in aluminum or steel. All multihulls (catamarans or trimarans) are very sensitive to weight. Multihull designers work very hard to craft strong, lightweight boats, often out of advanced composite materials. My suggestion of building a relatively small trimaran out of aluminum would strike some multihull designers as heading in the wrong direction. Building one out of steel is unthinkable, even for me :) > > I agree that designing a trimaran is much more complex than designing a monohull. I am not interested in purchasing expensive design software. I've had fun playing around with Delftship, but I'm not a naval engineer. If I decide to take this beyond the concept stage I will ask an experienced trimaran designer for advice. > > I purchased Brent's book "How to Build a Better Steel Boat" and was disappointed that there was little mention of how to design the flat plates. You mentioned that he has given a very good method to make a pattern manually. Can you direct me to that explanation? > > Thank you, > John | 24634|24571|2010-12-02 02:41:23|Aaron Williams|Re: 3D concept modeling of origami hull (was: Alu hull in Origami).|My tank with 3 hatches ________________________________ From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, December 1, 2010 2:27:37 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: 3D concept modeling of origami hull (was: Alu hull in Origami).   John, Type of the hull and materials you are going to use DOES make the difference. With your clarification, it is now easier to answer your questions. As I understand, you want to do 3-D concept (long narrow hull) modeling for NON-stretchable composite material (ready to use fiberglass/carbon_fiber sheets or whatever). Probably, you already have some modeling done in DelftShip and you want to continue to do your concept modeling for free. At this case, trial version of TouchCad should work for you just fine. You can use your hull lines from DeltShip. I will not go into details here (it will be boring for most people). Send me e-mail if you have troubles to figure out how to do it. But try hard to do it by yourself first ;)) This modeling will not be enough to make real boat, but good enough for concept modeling. Brent's method of creating pattern will not work for non-stretchable materials - you need to do precise 3-D modeling. His advice was in this group not so long ago, but it was about how to make pattern from real boat's hull. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > Wild, > > My primary question has always been how to design a hull using the origami >technique. It was you, I believe, who wanted to know what type of boat I was >wanting to build. When I mentioned "aluminum" it generated a whole lot of >comments not germane to my original question. > > However, for the type of boat I am thinking about (a trimaran), it is >absolutely NOT a personal preference as to whether I build in aluminum or steel. >All multihulls (catamarans or trimarans) are very sensitive to weight. Multihull >designers work very hard to craft strong, lightweight boats, often out of >advanced composite materials. My suggestion of building a relatively small >trimaran out of aluminum would strike some multihull designers as heading in the >wrong direction. Building one out of steel is unthinkable, even for me :) > > > I agree that designing a trimaran is much more complex than designing a >monohull. I am not interested in purchasing expensive design software. I've had >fun playing around with Delftship, but I'm not a naval engineer. If I decide to >take this beyond the concept stage I will ask an experienced trimaran designer >for advice. > > I purchased Brent's book "How to Build a Better Steel Boat" and was >disappointed that there was little mention of how to design the flat plates. You >mentioned that he has given a very good method to make a pattern manually. Can >you direct me to that explanation? > > Thank you, > John [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24635|24571|2010-12-02 02:49:17|Aaron Williams|Re: 3D concept modeling of origami hull (was: Alu hull in Origami).|Key board error... ________________________________ From: Aaron Williams To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, December 1, 2010 10:41:14 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: 3D concept modeling of origami hull (was: Alu hull in Origami).   My tank with 3 hatches ________________________________ From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, December 1, 2010 2:27:37 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: 3D concept modeling of origami hull (was: Alu hull in Origami).   John, Type of the hull and materials you are going to use DOES make the difference. With your clarification, it is now easier to answer your questions. As I understand, you want to do 3-D concept (long narrow hull) modeling for NON-stretchable composite material (ready to use fiberglass/carbon_fiber sheets or whatever). Probably, you already have some modeling done in DelftShip and you want to continue to do your concept modeling for free. At this case, trial version of TouchCad should work for you just fine. You can use your hull lines from DeltShip. I will not go into details here (it will be boring for most people). Send me e-mail if you have troubles to figure out how to do it. But try hard to do it by yourself first ;)) This modeling will not be enough to make real boat, but good enough for concept modeling. Brent's method of creating pattern will not work for non-stretchable materials - you need to do precise 3-D modeling. His advice was in this group not so long ago, but it was about how to make pattern from real boat's hull. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > Wild, > > My primary question has always been how to design a hull using the origami >technique. It was you, I believe, who wanted to know what type of boat I was >wanting to build. When I mentioned "aluminum" it generated a whole lot of >comments not germane to my original question. > > However, for the type of boat I am thinking about (a trimaran), it is >absolutely NOT a personal preference as to whether I build in aluminum or steel. > >All multihulls (catamarans or trimarans) are very sensitive to weight. Multihull > >designers work very hard to craft strong, lightweight boats, often out of >advanced composite materials. My suggestion of building a relatively small >trimaran out of aluminum would strike some multihull designers as heading in the > >wrong direction. Building one out of steel is unthinkable, even for me :) > > > I agree that designing a trimaran is much more complex than designing a >monohull. I am not interested in purchasing expensive design software. I've had >fun playing around with Delftship, but I'm not a naval engineer. If I decide to >take this beyond the concept stage I will ask an experienced trimaran designer >for advice. > > I purchased Brent's book "How to Build a Better Steel Boat" and was >disappointed that there was little mention of how to design the flat plates. You > >mentioned that he has given a very good method to make a pattern manually. Can >you direct me to that explanation? > > Thank you, > John [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24636|24636|2010-12-02 04:30:25|jonathanswef|Re: 3D concept modeling of origami hull (was: Alu hull in Origami|What I did for Eighteen was design a conventional single chine hull, put into Freeship, print off the plates, enlarge them on a photocopier and then play with joining them to get an origami hull that went together nicely in one tenth scale thin card. From there I drew it up full size on photo background paper and then onto the steel sheets. I made a model in aircraft ply, after which I changed the shape of the transom; I still put a little motor in it and my Boy and I have had fun at the pond playing with it. Freeship gave me all the data re surface area, entrance angles etc so I was able to alter things with the hard chine version until I had things as I wanted. Really useful to have displacement calculated for you... Nothing beats a model that you can pick up and look at all round and then balast up and play with . Jonathan, who is saving up for an engine in the face of endless other demands on funds...| 24637|24571|2010-12-02 05:31:49|boatwayupnorth|Re: Alu hull in Origami|John, I tried to get in touch with Gerd earlier this year without luck. His webpage hasn't been updated for quite some time, don't know what happened. He wants to keep a record about how many people ordered the plans for his Yago 31, but he distributes them for free. If you haven't heard from him in a while I guess it will be ok if I send you the plans. Let me know if you are interested. Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > Aaron, > > Thanks for directing me to Gerd and his Yago project. From his project manual I'm getting an idea of his way to design an origami hull. I'm also getting good ideas from posts by Greg Elliott of origamimagic.com. It appears that he's developed or adapted software to design an origami hull from any other hull. > > Gerd's Yago hulls have two chines with a flat (or nearly so) bottom. That's getting closer to what I am looking for. I've requested the blueprints for his Yago 31. Maybe that hull will be a good departure point for what I want. > > Thanks again, > John > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > > > John > > > > Look up Gerd in the search menu he had a neet way of explaining how to develope > > an Origami design. > > > > Aaron  > > > > > | 24638|24571|2010-12-02 08:27:16|jhess314|Re: 3D concept modeling of origami hull (was: Alu hull in Origami).|Wild, I'm exploring the possibility of making a trimaran of aluminum, not fiberglass or carbon fiber. Thanks for the suggestion of using the trial version of TouchCAD as an adjunct to Delftship. I'll continue looking for Brent's description of origami pattern making. John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > John, > > Type of the hull and materials you are going to use DOES make the difference. With your clarification, it is now easier to answer your questions. > > As I understand, you want to do 3-D concept (long narrow hull) modeling for NON-stretchable composite material (ready to use fiberglass/carbon_fiber sheets or whatever). > > Probably, you already have some modeling done in DelftShip and you want to continue to do your concept modeling for free. > > At this case, trial version of TouchCad should work for you just fine. You can use your hull lines from DeltShip. I will not go into details here (it will be boring for most people). Send me e-mail if you have troubles to figure out how to do it. But try hard to do it by yourself first ;)) This modeling will not be enough to make real boat, but good enough for concept modeling. > > Brent's method of creating pattern will not work for non-stretchable materials - you need to do precise 3-D modeling. His advice was in this group not so long ago, but it was about how to make pattern from real boat's hull. > | 24639|24636|2010-12-02 08:47:01|jhess314|Re: 3D concept modeling of origami hull (was: Alu hull in Origami|Jonathan, I'm starting to think that Freeship my have some design features that the free version of Delftship doesn't have. Thanks for your suggestions. John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanswef" wrote: > > What I did for Eighteen was design a conventional single chine hull, put into Freeship, print off the plates, enlarge them on a photocopier and then play with joining them to get an origami hull that went together nicely in one tenth scale thin card. From there I drew it up full size on photo background paper and then onto the steel sheets. I made a model in aircraft ply, after which I changed the shape of the transom; I still put a little motor in it and my Boy and I have had fun at the pond playing with it. > Freeship gave me all the data re surface area, entrance angles etc so I was able to alter things with the hard chine version until I had things as I wanted. Really useful to have displacement calculated for you... > Nothing beats a model that you can pick up and look at all round and then balast up and play with . > Jonathan, who is saving up for an engine in the face of endless other demands on funds... > | 24640|24571|2010-12-02 08:47:39|jhess314|Re: Alu hull in Origami|Walter, If Gerd is no longer responding to website requests I would very much appreciate your sending me a copy of his Yago 31 plans. Thanks, John j(dot)hess(at)ymail(dot)com --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "boatwayupnorth" wrote: > > > John, I tried to get in touch with Gerd earlier this year without luck. His webpage hasn't been updated for quite some time, don't know what happened. He wants to keep a record about how many people ordered the plans for his Yago 31, but he distributes them for free. > If you haven't heard from him in a while I guess it will be ok if I send you the plans. Let me know if you are interested. > Walter > | 24641|24641|2010-12-02 10:27:11|SHANE ROTHWELL|Alu hull in Orgami|. John, Gerd and his Yago project extremely informative, very creative guy from whom we can all learn lots. Gord is correct, just buy Brent's plans. Simple, effective and well proven with many of his boats surviving torture tests that no other material could. period. As you will also notice, Brent has no problem sharing his experience, designs & otherwize.  If you are looking to "be reasonable and do it the hard way", as well as dispose of any and all extra time, effort and money you may have, well, do you think Greg Elliot of origamimajic is your man? Are you familiar with the term "bamboozlespeak"? How about "bend over, we've got one on the fire just for you"?       Re: Alu hull in Origami Posted by: "jhess314" j.hess@...   jhess314 Wed Dec 1, 2010 1:06 pm (PST) Aaron, Thanks for directing me to Gerd and his Yago project. From his project manual I'm getting an idea of his way to design an origami hull. I'm also getting good ideas from posts by Greg Elliott of origamimagic. com. It appears that he's developed or adapted software to design an origami hull from any other hull. Gerd's Yago hulls have two chines with a flat (or nearly so) bottom. That's getting closer to what I am looking for. I've requested the blueprints for his Yago 31. Maybe that hull will be a good departure point for what I want. Thanks again, John| 24642|24571|2010-12-02 12:24:35|wild_explorer|Re: 3D concept modeling of origami hull (was: Alu hull in Origami).|John, Search field in this group saves the day again ;) Message #23818 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/message/23818 Thanks to Brent. P.S. Take a look at soft toys pattern. Similar process of unfolding 3-D shape. Hull is even easier, but material properties are different. Keep us updated on your progress. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > Wild, > I'm exploring the possibility of making a trimaran of aluminum, not fiberglass or carbon fiber. > > Thanks for the suggestion of using the trial version of TouchCAD as an adjunct to Delftship. > > I'll continue looking for Brent's description of origami pattern making. > > John > | 24643|24643|2010-12-02 13:53:31|wild_explorer|Origami hull|I was thinking why Brent call his method "Origami" if it is not exactly what other people understand as origami... I suspect, it is because almost any basic geometrical shape could be done without any tools just by folding a sheet of paper. And it is very suitable for hull design - origami usually symmetrical. I am slowly moving in that direction (away from 3D-only). 3-D does help, but it is need to go to the roots first ;) And everything starts as a toy. This link I found searching for paper origami. http://www.jerseyboatcrafts.com/| 24644|24571|2010-12-02 20:40:51|Gord Schnell|Re: Alu hull in Origami|John Guess you caught me "scan reading" again. Your right, mono-hulls are NOT the starting place for multi-hulls. No, I haven't measured the shim stock but I will grab a mic tomorrow and do that. The hull comes out to 19.5".......a scale of 25:1 Gord On 1-Dec-10, at 1:38 PM, jhess314 wrote: > Gord, > > The hull shape of monohulls are generally considered to be too fat > for multihulls. Monohull length to breadth ratio is often in the > range of 3:1. Trimarans may be 8:1 or 9:1. Catamarans around 10:1. > So I can't use any of Brent's designs "as is". > > Did you ever measure the thickness of the shim material you used in > your boat model? And what was the length of your model? > > Thank you, > John > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > wrote: > > > > Hey John.....why don't you just buy Brent Swains Plans and then you > > won't have to reinvent the already invented "Origami Boat" > > Gord > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24645|24645|2010-12-03 09:02:08|Max|OT: Boat registration in Canada|This question is off-topic, but I'm addressing it to this group because many of you live in the Northwest, and might have bought boats cross-border. I've in something of a bind with a boat I bought last year. It's a steel boat originally built in Canada, but currently registered in the US. I am the third owner. To make things simple, I'll refer to the first owner as Albert and the second owner as Bob. Bob bought the boat from Albert shortly before Albert's death. It was bought with a personal mortgage from Bob to Albert. Bob paid for the boat in full, but Albert didn't give him a Satisfaction of Mortgage paper to send to the Coast Guard before he died. Now, Albert is dead and Bob can't get in touch with any surviving family. The result is that Bob can't get a Deletion paper from the US Coast Guard Registry. In turn, without this Deletion paper, I can't register the boat in Canada. Am I totally screwed? Should I just abandon the boat and cut my losses? Or is there some way to get around this? I've thought of foregoing registration altogether and just getting a provincial license, which doesn't ask for a deletion from the previous registry. Would I be able to sail internationally with the boat, using only provincial license papers? I've also thought that it would be possible to register the boat as a Canadian newbuild, but that's pretty shady. -Maxime| 24646|24645|2010-12-03 09:52:12|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: OT: Boat registration in Canada - experiences|I have worked these types of cases for clients (my beautiful better half is the lawyer). We have registered and imported /exported dozens of (exotic) vehicles and boats. There are 3 issues; US COast guard / duplicate registry Travelling internationally Satisfaction of Mortgage- paperwork issue I have travelled internationally by boat and never has there been any problem, ie any paperwork you present will usually get accepted wherever you go. The only problems are maybe in the US with the Homeland Security people, in that they might expect a given format/type of documentation. In my experience, elsewhere, as long as you have insurance in your name, everything is peachy. The only problem might appear if some long-lost kin of Albert appears, and has some paperwork saying he has an interest in the boat. Likewise, there are specific laws and statues meant to deal with this type of problem. Every country has them. In general, you register the boat in your name... and there might be a cooling-off period or time during which a legal notice is posted (web, newspaper etc. for anyone to declare their interest etc. or for the government collect any monies owed). After the period has passed and or some formalities have been signed, you will be able to get the title/registration moved. You don´t really need a lawyer unless you want one. The dept. that issues them (registrations/titles) will have some cubbyhole somewhere, where a patient and understanding civil cervant will help you fill in the relevant forms and tell you how it goes. The best way, ime, is going there looking like a lost sheep, and explaining the situation. The incorrect way, ime, is using words like "you must", "I demand", "I insist etc", "You cannot" etc. Sometimes (10%) a particularly obnoxious official will not help you advance. Come back the next day, and go to the next desk or next person. This has always worked, over about 40 cases. Sometimes it is done by the chief of the motor vehicles/registry dept, but this will vary by country (maybe state too). There are universal conventions that regulate the paperwork coast guards / police / military must accept. If the boat seems all right, and you are polite and have some documentation + necessary passports/VISA/insurance etc. I have never had a long-term problem, during some 3-500 border crossings. Depending on what we carried (expensive telecoms gear, 4 Harleys, cash, etc.) I had to sometimes fill in a form or two, and in some places a sixpack or two helped ease the paperwork along. Certainly, I am sure my details are in lots of gevernment files all over the place, but as I never have had any contraband, it has never been a problem. Some countries (latin america, africa) may have all kinds of arcance documentation requests (zarpa´s etc.). These are usually a light shakedown, solved by paying for the permit/ticket whatever on the spot, 30-100$. FWIW: We have done lots of these papers for people who have a lot of money, and don´t speak the language and or are uninterested in standing in line and doing the 3-5 office circular-jerk-dance around. I charge(d) 70 / hr, which improved my motivation in standing at the line of the local gendarmerie (France)/aduana (Spain, Mexico)/customs(Malta), US DHS/Tunis/Italia whatever. In one case, a friend saved 70kEUR that the guilty, greedy lawyers said the registration would cost. I did it for free. (But got to take a 24 m Baia Azzurra offshore boat for 2+ weeks, all expenses paid, 3000 m trip in the med. Fair enough, imo). People who have been to canada, and those I have seen in ports all over the world, have had similar experiences. In general, the paperwork can always be solved. If the boat is very expensive, you might consult a broker of some kind. As I am currently in Spain, I don´t have direct experience of how to do it for Canada (but could certainly find out). > This question is off-topic, but I'm addressing it to this group > because many of you live in the Northwest, and might have bought boats > cross-border. > > I've in something of a bind with a boat I bought last year. It's a > steel boat originally built in Canada, but currently registered in the > US. I am the third owner. To make things simple, I'll refer to the > first owner as Albert and the second owner as Bob. Bob bought the boat > from Albert shortly before Albert's death. It was bought with a > personal mortgage from Bob to Albert. Bob paid for the boat in full, > but Albert didn't give him a Satisfaction of Mortgage paper to send to > the Coast Guard before he died. Now, Albert is dead and Bob can't get > in touch with any surviving family. > > The result is that Bob can't get a Deletion paper from the US Coast > Guard Registry. In turn, without this Deletion paper, I can't register > the boat in Canada. > > Am I totally screwed? Should I just abandon the boat and cut my > losses? Or is there some way to get around this? I've thought of > foregoing registration altogether and just getting a provincial > license, which doesn't ask for a deletion from the previous registry. > Would I be able to sail internationally with the boat, using only > provincial license papers? I've also thought that it would be possible > to register the boat as a Canadian newbuild, but that's pretty shady. > > -Maxime > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24647|24641|2010-12-03 15:27:54|mauro gonzaga|Re: Alu hull in Orgami|Does anybody know how to contact Gerd? His Yago is simply beautiful, a bit longer would suit me. Mauro --- On Thu, 12/2/10, SHANE ROTHWELL wrote: From: SHANE ROTHWELL Subject: [origamiboats] Alu hull in Orgami To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 4:27 PM   . John, Gerd and his Yago project extremely informative, very creative guy from whom we can all learn lots. Gord is correct, just buy Brent's plans. Simple, effective and well proven with many of his boats surviving torture tests that no other material could. period. As you will also notice, Brent has no problem sharing his experience, designs & otherwize.  If you are looking to "be reasonable and do it the hard way", as well as dispose of any and all extra time, effort and money you may have, well, do you think Greg Elliot of origamimajic is your man? Are you familiar with the term "bamboozlespeak"? How about "bend over, we've got one on the fire just for you"?       Re: Alu hull in Origami Posted by: "jhess314" j.hess@...   jhess314 Wed Dec 1, 2010 1:06 pm (PST) Aaron, Thanks for directing me to Gerd and his Yago project. From his project manual I'm getting an idea of his way to design an origami hull. I'm also getting good ideas from posts by Greg Elliott of origamimagic. com. It appears that he's developed or adapted software to design an origami hull from any other hull. Gerd's Yago hulls have two chines with a flat (or nearly so) bottom. That's getting closer to what I am looking for. I've requested the blueprints for his Yago 31. Maybe that hull will be a good departure point for what I want. Thanks again, John [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24648|24641|2010-12-03 16:14:52|wild_explorer|Re: Alu hull in Orgami|I was unable to get any respond from him (about 1 year ago) sending e-mail trough his website. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > Does anybody know how to contact Gerd? His Yago is simply beautiful, a bit longer would suit me. > Mauro | 24649|24571|2010-12-03 18:24:36|brentswain38|Re: Alu hull in Origami|One 36 and one 40 have been done in aluminium to my designs. The 40 is somewhere near Australia by now, as best I can guess. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > I dont recall that Brents boats have been done in alu, Brent ? > > But in principle, of course alu is a good to excellent boatbuilding > material. > 2 caveats; > 1.Welding alu is a vastly trickier/harder job than in steel. > Uness you are a pro welder with the equipment and experience, I would > say that it is NOT what you want to do yourself. > Alu welds are not proven by eye for strength.... they can easily look > good, but can be reject welds inside and will fail in stress or over > time, unlike in steel. > The difference between a good and bad weld in alu is time, ie how > fast/slow it was welded, and the difference is very small, apparently. > > - There is an option, go to a 4 week course, and buy the equipment, say > 2000EUR for the welder and bits, and about the same for the course. > > - Alu is a lot more expensive by weight. > > - Alu hulls typically end up about 20% lighter, all in. > > - The scantlings in alu, ie thicknesses, you can get from a comparable > sized displacement hull from any production builder. > Strongall is one. > > 2. If you choose the alu route, you will be building a hull at about 3x > the material cost of the steel hull. > Overall, from a potential builders POV, I would say; > Alu is a better option, IF and only IF you have the money to spend the > extra 30-40k$ or 20-30 kEUR. > Then again, if you have the money, for less than that, you might go for > the 40 ft size in steel. > > Options; > Use a pro welder/boatbuilder to do it. > -> Benefits: > + Hull re-sale value will be at least double the steel one, maybe more. > + The hull will be lighter, and faster. > + The work is done fast, and you get a basic sailaway hull in 1 month, > as you are paying for pro work with tooling. > If we accept 200 hours pro work, at 35$/hr for a qualified welder with > tools, the work cost might be around 7000$. > > If you learn how to do alu, get certified in welding, and buy the tools, > your cost might be about the same, but take 3-4 months before you are done. > To start with, you could build all sorts of bits to gain confidence. > It would still be a pro built hull (by You !), and you would have the > tools and skills and welding ticket left over. > > Brent boats are an excellent option for a limited-funds, self reliant, > go-small/go-know option. > And this is exactly what many have done. > Deviating from the proven steel/small/DIY appproach will only work if > you have or are bringing in some special value that you have. > > This might be for example, > -tooling and skills (metal fabrication, lathework, milling machines, cnc), > -marine wiring, tooling, experience, > -hydraulics experience and tooling and bits and bobs, > -paint and finishes experience, sandblasting tols and experience, > -CAD experience and software, > -a professional work site (access to a place with overhead cranes), > -a truck with a hydraulic crane, > -farm equipment like tractors, caterpillars, bobcats etc. > > In which case you can go bigger/faster/better either in doing better > finishes, a bigger boat or something like that. > > There are lots of experiences of failed paths where people have tried to > deviate from the norm, and have an unfinished project on their hands > that has not been successful in the end. > These questions re: bigger hulls, aluminium, faster build time, etc seem > to come up every couple of years. > They are usually speculation and stay as such, unless significant > resources are bought into the project from day 1. > > It is not that an alu Brent boat cannot be done, of course it can, and > it will work. > The significant important question in my opinion, for any potential > builder, is whether they thenselves can do it. > And to do this, the resources necessary to see the project succesfully > concluded simply must be there, whether in skills and tooling or boat > units $. > > > > > > Gord, > > > > What thickness shim stock did you use for what length of model boat? > > Using the ratio of 3/16" plate for a 36' long boat I get ~0.010" shim > > stock for a 2' long model boat. > > > > I've seen photos of a few origami boats built in aluminum, and I > > wondered if the same patterns used for a steel boat could also be used > > for an aluminum one? I assume the aluminum would need to be thicker. > > What thickness for a 36' boat? > > > > John > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24650|24523|2010-12-03 19:01:31|brentswain38|Re: Strength of Orgami|The hull deck joint is anything but two flat surfaces comming together. There is considerable longitudinal curve in the the topsides of any sailing hull, which changes the dynamics drastcially, Ditto the chines, which are two curves comming together, the curved topsides and the curved bottom plate, a drastic difference, structurally, from two flat surfaces comming together. Longitudinals, running as they do, along the curve of the hull, are far more effective in resisting buckling than the relatively straight transverse frames of a hard chine, transverse framed hull. Transverse frames, being straight, are under a bending load only. Longitudinals are under a compression load. Its far easier to bend a flat bar on edge than to compress an angle longitudinal on end, especially when its welded inside a steel hull. The need for gussets along the hull deck joint is eliminated by the pipes for the mast support and deck support, from the inside of the hull cabin side joint to the chine, eliminating any movement there. They, supporting the cabinside, a beam on edge, and curved longitudinaly as well, make such gussets, structurally, totally irrelevant. I use cheap filler for my interior, made from mismatched oil based paint , mixed with talc. If there were any movement in my hull, it would have cracked out long ago. None has, in 26 years and tens of thousands of ocean crossing miles, in all weathers, and cruising 11 months a year for most of those 26 years. That is far more definitive than any paper calculations on flexing. As one can put a 100 ton hydraulic jack from one chine to the opposite hull deck joint, and crank it to full extension without changing the hull shape in any measureable way, except to stretch and dent the pate at the end of the jack, Transverse bulkheads in my boats are structuraly, totally irrelevant. The odds of punching a hole in a boat under 50 feet made of 3/16th plate, in open ocean, are so remote as to make watertight bulkheads a bit like buying asteroid collision insurance. For fire , my brother a retired fireman, says that if you seal the boat airtight, there is not enough oxygen to support a fire for very long. He's seen that happen in a departmnment store. A friend with a 35 ft Colvisn Saugeen witch, had his oil stove overflow. It burned a 2 ft circle above the stove, before the fire went out, due to lack of oxygen, despite there being plenty of unburned diesel fuel around. There was not enough to burn a way thru the wooden hatches nor plastic vents or ports. Seal a steel boat, and the fire wont last long enought to do much damage. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > This was " At what point is the hull shape "locked"? " In my last post, I explained how sheets meeting at near-right angles (70-110 degrees) tend to stiffen each other because they transfer shear flow. I also talked about free edges, and how closing the box makes the box more stiff, and by certain measures stronger. > > The engineer in me likes to tell the entire story, not just the best parts of it. I have noted in various construction photos like this: > > http://theboat.smugmug.com/Boats/Kim/14192611_nezSR#1092933216_8sNrt > > That the deck and hull, and other near-right angle joints come together and are welded. So long as everything is connected, and stays connected, the orgami shell has egg-like stiffness, and maybe strength. The only thing the orgami shape really guarantees is stiffness, and the hull might actually be "brittle" meaning, really good stiffness, but no plasticity to speak of at that stress level, really more of a buckling-like loss of strength until there is some secondary reinforcement after partial collapse. > > Take an empty aluminium pop can for instance. If one is careful, a 200 lb man can balance on one, but once it starts to go, it quickly crushes down to one third or less of its height. This buckling is a brittle behaviour of the structure, even though the material is very tough. Once crushed down, the crush of the can starts to reinforce the can again, and the collapse stops. If one is balanced on a can and a second person very carefully touches the side of the can with something like the eraser end of a pencil, the can's collapse will occur immediately. Buckling is unstable and leads to brittle-like failures of structures. > > In a frame-design boat, there is a lot more steel in the frames, at stations down the length of the boat. Buckling is different -- there is a lot of inter-frame buckling, and frames can prevent buckles from involving the entire hull. If one has seen a lot of pictures of old freighters, then one is used to seeing the golf-ball dimpling effect of inter-frame buckling on old rusty freighters that have pounded in waves. > > http://my.qoop.com/store/Photogenic-Asia---Royalty-Free-Images-3201258271360100/Old-Freighter-by-Shi-Yali-qpps_9751215685575943/ > > The frames also experience more stiffening as buckling proceeds than a skin-hull would. Placing all of the weight of the steel in the skin certainly creates greater initial stiffness, but gives up the reinforcing properties of frames once buckling starts. > > One possible failure mode of an orgami is a seam letting go. What is the danger of a seam letting go? The local stiffness of the hull goes down. The two plates are now not reinforcing each other the same way. With a reduction in stiffness, at the same force levels, the deflections increase, locally. The two plates can buckle. Take a 2 liter cardboard milk container with a plastic screw-top. Cut a 2cm long cut in along one of the edges of the carton half way down the side. Compare it to a similar container with no cut. If one compresses the container end-to-end, the cut may open up like eyelids. > > With increased deflections, the local stresses at the part of the seam that is still holding on, immediately adjacent to the opening, increase. If the stresses are cyclic, like from a sea, the seam can flex back and forth -- like a coat hanger -- a particular section of seam can fatigue in just a few cycles and the seam separation can advance. The more it advances, the less stiff the hull becomes and the more it deflects, and the more force at that part of the seam still just holding on. If an orgami seam starts to go, it can zipper a little more with each wave. > > Now, steel vs. fibreglass (real mat fibreglass not chop-spray boats): No comparison, the steel is stronger, but the joints might not be stronger. Try breaking a coathanger. Try breaking a 3/16" rod of fibreglass. Also, fibreglass, a much less stiff material to start out with, that is made thicker, so would tend to create less stress concentration. Also, fibreglass mat layups are very resistant to zippering, they hinge and fray, but tend not to zipper. Where would this be better ? Probably nowhere in practicality, this is not an argument for fibreglass boats, just an observation of how a much weaker material is exploited well to get good over all properties for a hull. Therefore much greater hull strength should be possible with steel. > > After looking at the construction photos of several orgamis, I see a flat deck meeting a flat topsides. Both are stiff in-plane, and both are stiffened by the other out of plane, but the stiffening of the joint in flex comes from 3 dimensional effects. A more direct stiffening might be used, using gusset plates, or internal webs. Here is a web page that talks about gusset plates on a beam structure. > > http://www.strand7.com/html/Webnotes/Gusset.htm > > These gussets , or small mini-frames if you will, might be welding into inside corners on the inside of the hull. They would contribute slightly to stiffness of the boat, however, they contribute significantly to "toughness". Once a boat buckles, these frames have to stretch a lot, and keep stretching the more it buckles. Also, if a seam starts to let go, the opening might easily stop at a gusset web. > > Each gusset might weigh a pound or two, and welding in one every foot on all interior corners, would add about 100-200 pounds to the weight of a 26' boat. Maybe every 2 feet would work almost as well. Don't know, have not run the numbers. > > An orgami without gussets, looking at a seam opening problem should look to the construction methods -- get a chain-winch across the gap to hold it closed (reduce deflections which would reduce the tendency for a seam to run), and rejoin the edges ASAP to re-establish shear flow. > > I am not suggesting an orgami might spontaneously peel like a banana, however there is no reason not to invest a small amount of weight, and time, and probably no new material (gussets might come from scraps) putting direct stiffness into one aspect of the orgami hull -- seam hinging -- and at the same time, provide stop-points for seam failures. Gussets would add to the forces needed to continue buckling that initially stiff steel shell. Providing more capacity to continue carrying loads after the hull begins to yield is a type of toughness. Gussets would seem to confer more of the steel's natural strength and toughness to the overall hull shape at very small cost. > > I also like the idea of bulkheads, 2 or more of them, to divide the volume up to make flooding, fire, etc a local problem to one section. Bulkheads need not be really thick steel since one might see and paint both sides regularly. But bulkheads are an entirely different measure to gussets. > > Matt > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > That makes sense. Thin sheet structures gain stiffness by curvature, yes, but also connectedness. The connectedness allows shear loads to be transferred from one panel to the next. Try it with a standard 8-flap cardboard box (4 flaps on the bottom, 4 on the top). Close the bottom well, with tape. Fold the top shut but do not tape it. Deform the box, and the two top flaps will slide laterally relative to one another. This is because no shear force can be transferred from one to the other, so they move. Place some tape over the boundary between the flaps on the top, and suddenly the shape of the box is locked. > > > > > > From the description of what you say though, the doghouse and cockpit are not in. So you still have free edges of deck sheets. To save yourself some tiny deformation of the hull, which might manifest itself as a little up and down, out of plane deflection in the deck edge where it is currently attached to nothing, leave the cross brace in for a moment. Once something is welded to the inner edge of the deck, something that is stiff in the up and down direction, like the cabin sides and cockpit sides, there is less possibility of this free-edge deflection. > > > > > > The reason is, tack-welding sheets at sharp angles (like 70-110 degrees) it is sort of like a lever. Every time one tacks in another sheet, essentially at right angles to the previous one, the first sheet is stiffened greatly by the in-plane stiffness of the second sheet. The small out-of-plane deflections of the second sheet are the only degree of freedom left. The first sheet has very little mechanical advantage over this degree of freedom (like a really short lever) but can cause largish deflections with tremendous forces. The lever works both ways though, the largish out of plane deflections of the second sheet's free edge have a tremendous mechanical advantage over the rest of the hull. Forcing that free edge straight takes a relatively small force through a largish distance, and applies huge forces on the hull to deflect it very slightly, to put its shape back to the deck-flat shape when the brace was in. > > > > > > Therefore, when Brent was pulling inside the hull, with the decks on, he was working at the hard end of the lever. > > > > > > Flattening the decks by hand, while tacking in the cockpit sides and cabin sides will not be as hard as deforming the hull, but might be more force than one can apply with one hand while using the welder in the other. Leaving that brace in until one has turned the second angle, on the deck, to the cockpit sides and cabin sides, is like putting a lever on lever. Not only is the hull more rigidly held, the deck free edge is no longer free and can't buckle out of plane. Lastly, forcing the now free edge of the cockpit sides and cabin sides right (assuming the brace is removed) may not be necessary, and will be far easier because you are taking advantage of the mechanical advantage of the lever *squared*. > > > > > > This is likely too fine of a distinction for most. One more come-along will solve a lot of problems, but I like things to line up like they are supposed to, without having doubts of where that deflection is coming from. I also feel this leads to a design with the minimum of built-in stress which just makes it stronger relative to outside forces. So I would leave the brace in for now. For practicality reasons, the entire dog house or cockpit might be constructed as a unit, not on the boat, say in a garage, and then lifted into place as a unit. I would leave the brace in until it is tacked down, just to keep the deck sheets as flat as the day you tacked them down, and avoid uncertainty later. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:42:39 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"? > > > > > > > > > > > Once all the decks are on ,it is locked. We once tried to change it after all the decks were on, and ended up breaking the handle off a 3 ton come along, without moving it a sixteenth of an inch. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near the centerline. > > > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap back in! > > > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24651|24571|2010-12-03 19:16:41|Matt Malone|Re: Alu hull in Origami|Because the aluminium plate has to be about 2x thicker for the same hull size, the local plate stiffness versus minor denting is tremendously higher. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 23:24:34 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Alu hull in Origami One 36 and one 40 have been done in aluminium to my designs. The 40 is somewhere near Australia by now, as best I can guess. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > I dont recall that Brents boats have been done in alu, Brent ? > > But in principle, of course alu is a good to excellent boatbuilding > material. > 2 caveats; > 1.Welding alu is a vastly trickier/harder job than in steel. > Uness you are a pro welder with the equipment and experience, I would > say that it is NOT what you want to do yourself. > Alu welds are not proven by eye for strength.... they can easily look > good, but can be reject welds inside and will fail in stress or over > time, unlike in steel. > The difference between a good and bad weld in alu is time, ie how > fast/slow it was welded, and the difference is very small, apparently. > > - There is an option, go to a 4 week course, and buy the equipment, say > 2000EUR for the welder and bits, and about the same for the course. > > - Alu is a lot more expensive by weight. > > - Alu hulls typically end up about 20% lighter, all in. > > - The scantlings in alu, ie thicknesses, you can get from a comparable > sized displacement hull from any production builder. > Strongall is one. > > 2. If you choose the alu route, you will be building a hull at about 3x > the material cost of the steel hull. > Overall, from a potential builders POV, I would say; > Alu is a better option, IF and only IF you have the money to spend the > extra 30-40k$ or 20-30 kEUR. > Then again, if you have the money, for less than that, you might go for > the 40 ft size in steel. > > Options; > Use a pro welder/boatbuilder to do it. > -> Benefits: > + Hull re-sale value will be at least double the steel one, maybe more. > + The hull will be lighter, and faster. > + The work is done fast, and you get a basic sailaway hull in 1 month, > as you are paying for pro work with tooling. > If we accept 200 hours pro work, at 35$/hr for a qualified welder with > tools, the work cost might be around 7000$. > > If you learn how to do alu, get certified in welding, and buy the tools, > your cost might be about the same, but take 3-4 months before you are done. > To start with, you could build all sorts of bits to gain confidence. > It would still be a pro built hull (by You !), and you would have the > tools and skills and welding ticket left over. > > Brent boats are an excellent option for a limited-funds, self reliant, > go-small/go-know option. > And this is exactly what many have done. > Deviating from the proven steel/small/DIY appproach will only work if > you have or are bringing in some special value that you have. > > This might be for example, > -tooling and skills (metal fabrication, lathework, milling machines, cnc), > -marine wiring, tooling, experience, > -hydraulics experience and tooling and bits and bobs, > -paint and finishes experience, sandblasting tols and experience, > -CAD experience and software, > -a professional work site (access to a place with overhead cranes), > -a truck with a hydraulic crane, > -farm equipment like tractors, caterpillars, bobcats etc. > > In which case you can go bigger/faster/better either in doing better > finishes, a bigger boat or something like that. > > There are lots of experiences of failed paths where people have tried to > deviate from the norm, and have an unfinished project on their hands > that has not been successful in the end. > These questions re: bigger hulls, aluminium, faster build time, etc seem > to come up every couple of years. > They are usually speculation and stay as such, unless significant > resources are bought into the project from day 1. > > It is not that an alu Brent boat cannot be done, of course it can, and > it will work. > The significant important question in my opinion, for any potential > builder, is whether they thenselves can do it. > And to do this, the resources necessary to see the project succesfully > concluded simply must be there, whether in skills and tooling or boat > units $. > > > > > > Gord, > > > > What thickness shim stock did you use for what length of model boat? > > Using the ratio of 3/16" plate for a 36' long boat I get ~0.010" shim > > stock for a 2' long model boat. > > > > I've seen photos of a few origami boats built in aluminum, and I > > wondered if the same patterns used for a steel boat could also be used > > for an aluminum one? I assume the aluminum would need to be thicker. > > What thickness for a 36' boat? > > > > John > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24652|24523|2010-12-03 19:19:42|brentswain38|Re: Strength of Orgami|On rocks intialy the only two points to make contact are the chines and the bottom of the keel. These points are amidships and low so adding a lot of extra weight there will have negligible effect on performance. The bottom of my keel is half inch plate, with a lot of ballast on top. I reinforce the chines with a layer of 3/16 plate inside,for 6 inches either side, on single keelers, making it 3/8th inch thick there. There would be no harm in making it 1/2 inch or more there. In many groundings , if the chines and the bottom of the keel survive, the rocks wont touch anywhere else. When one my 36 footers grounded and spent the night on Flora Islet SE of Hornby Island, in a 35 knot southeasterly, there was only paint damage. The skipper credited that to the doubler plate inside the chines. He had pounded on Mittlenach Island for a night in similar conditions, with no damage. This can be done on boats of other materials as well. I've seen fibreglas boats lost, which would have survived, had they had a bit more thickness on the turn of the bilge. One of my 36 footers pounded in 8 to 12 foot surf on the west coast of the Baja for 16 days, before being pulled off thru 8 to 12 foot surf, being picked up and dropped on hard packed sand , every wave for 1/4 mile with no serious damage . Another pounded across 300 yards of Fijian coral reef ouside Suva, before being dragged the same distance back to deep water by a tug, , without any structral damage whatever. These tests are far mre relevant than speculation. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > This one maybe? > > http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachments/boat-design/18059d1199668116-steel-yacht-construction-steelhull.jpg > > http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/steel-yacht-construction-20860.html > > Yes, impressive. > > But the anvil will not always be round. On cannot rip a pop can over a round railing. Sometimes the rocks are pointy, leading to folds. > > Also, few freighters back up for a second run at it; whereas, waves and rocks, seldom is there just one bump. > > I am not talking about the really likely, but if one is talking the trouble to weld tons of steel, then why not put in a couple hundred more pounds to directly reinforcing the least reinforced point ? My argument is only to get the most out of the material. > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: akenai@... > Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:48:15 -0800 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Strength of Orgami > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone had a photo of a Swain boat that was T-Boned by a freighter and made it > > back to port. > > > > Aaron > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24653|24523|2010-12-03 19:22:45|brentswain38|Re: Strength of Orgami|Pipes from the inside deck edge to the chine, do the same thing structurally , far more effectively, with none of the problems. It only takes two of them per side. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > Under deck edge gussets be carefull there they would need to connect on a > deck beam and the bottom run down to the top stringer. Terminating the > gussets on the hull plating would cause a hard spot that will crack the > plating . > Tom > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > This was " At what point is the hull shape "locked"? " In my last post, I > > explained how sheets meeting at near-right angles (70-110 degrees) tend to > > stiffen each other because they transfer shear flow. I also talked about > > free edges, and how closing the box makes the box more stiff, and by certain > > measures stronger. > > > > The engineer in me likes to tell the entire story, not just the best parts > > of it. I have noted in various construction photos like this: > > > > http://theboat.smugmug.com/Boats/Kim/14192611_nezSR#1092933216_8sNrt > > > > That the deck and hull, and other near-right angle joints come together and > > are welded. So long as everything is connected, and stays connected, the > > orgami shell has egg-like stiffness, and maybe strength. The only thing > > the orgami shape really guarantees is stiffness, and the hull might actually > > be "brittle" meaning, really good stiffness, but no plasticity to speak of > > at that stress level, really more of a buckling-like loss of strength until > > there is some secondary reinforcement after partial collapse. > > > > Take an empty aluminium pop can for instance. If one is careful, a 200 lb > > man can balance on one, but once it starts to go, it quickly crushes down > > to one third or less of its height. This buckling is a brittle behaviour of > > the structure, even though the material is very tough. Once crushed down, > > the crush of the can starts to reinforce the can again, and the collapse > > stops. If one is balanced on a can and a second person very carefully > > touches the side of the can with something like the eraser end of a pencil, > > the can's collapse will occur immediately. Buckling is unstable and leads > > to brittle-like failures of structures. > > > > In a frame-design boat, there is a lot more steel in the frames, at > > stations down the length of the boat. Buckling is different -- there is a > > lot of inter-frame buckling, and frames can prevent buckles from involving > > the entire hull. If one has seen a lot of pictures of old freighters, then > > one is used to seeing the golf-ball dimpling effect of inter-frame buckling > > on old rusty freighters that have pounded in waves. > > > > > > http://my.qoop.com/store/Photogenic-Asia---Royalty-Free-Images-3201258271360100/Old-Freighter-by-Shi-Yali-qpps_9751215685575943/ > > > > The frames also experience more stiffening as buckling proceeds than a > > skin-hull would. Placing all of the weight of the steel in the skin > > certainly creates greater initial stiffness, but gives up the reinforcing > > properties of frames once buckling starts. > > > > One possible failure mode of an orgami is a seam letting go. What is the > > danger of a seam letting go? The local stiffness of the hull goes down. > > The two plates are now not reinforcing each other the same way. With a > > reduction in stiffness, at the same force levels, the deflections increase, > > locally. The two plates can buckle. Take a 2 liter cardboard milk > > container with a plastic screw-top. Cut a 2cm long cut in along one of the > > edges of the carton half way down the side. Compare it to a similar > > container with no cut. If one compresses the container end-to-end, the cut > > may open up like eyelids. > > > > With increased deflections, the local stresses at the part of the seam that > > is still holding on, immediately adjacent to the opening, increase. If the > > stresses are cyclic, like from a sea, the seam can flex back and forth -- > > like a coat hanger -- a particular section of seam can fatigue in just a few > > cycles and the seam separation can advance. The more it advances, the less > > stiff the hull becomes and the more it deflects, and the more force at that > > part of the seam still just holding on. If an orgami seam starts to go, it > > can zipper a little more with each wave. > > > > Now, steel vs. fibreglass (real mat fibreglass not chop-spray boats): No > > comparison, the steel is stronger, but the joints might not be stronger. > > Try breaking a coathanger. Try breaking a 3/16" rod of fibreglass. Also, > > fibreglass, a much less stiff material to start out with, that is made > > thicker, so would tend to create less stress concentration. Also, > > fibreglass mat layups are very resistant to zippering, they hinge and fray, > > but tend not to zipper. Where would this be better ? Probably nowhere in > > practicality, this is not an argument for fibreglass boats, just an > > observation of how a much weaker material is exploited well to get good over > > all properties for a hull. Therefore much greater hull strength should be > > possible with steel. > > > > After looking at the construction photos of several orgamis, I see a flat > > deck meeting a flat topsides. Both are stiff in-plane, and both are > > stiffened by the other out of plane, but the stiffening of the joint in flex > > comes from 3 dimensional effects. A more direct stiffening might be used, > > using gusset plates, or internal webs. Here is a web page that talks about > > gusset plates on a beam structure. > > > > http://www.strand7.com/html/Webnotes/Gusset.htm > > > > These gussets , or small mini-frames if you will, might be welding into > > inside corners on the inside of the hull. They would contribute slightly to > > stiffness of the boat, however, they contribute significantly to > > "toughness". Once a boat buckles, these frames have to stretch a lot, and > > keep stretching the more it buckles. Also, if a seam starts to let go, the > > opening might easily stop at a gusset web. > > > > Each gusset might weigh a pound or two, and welding in one every foot on > > all interior corners, would add about 100-200 pounds to the weight of a 26' > > boat. Maybe every 2 feet would work almost as well. Don't know, have not > > run the numbers. > > > > An orgami without gussets, looking at a seam opening problem should look to > > the construction methods -- get a chain-winch across the gap to hold it > > closed (reduce deflections which would reduce the tendency for a seam to > > run), and rejoin the edges ASAP to re-establish shear flow. > > > > I am not suggesting an orgami might spontaneously peel like a banana, > > however there is no reason not to invest a small amount of weight, and time, > > and probably no new material (gussets might come from scraps) putting direct > > stiffness into one aspect of the orgami hull -- seam hinging -- and at the > > same time, provide stop-points for seam failures. Gussets would add to the > > forces needed to continue buckling that initially stiff steel shell. > > Providing more capacity to continue carrying loads after the hull begins to > > yield is a type of toughness. Gussets would seem to confer more of the > > steel's natural strength and toughness to the overall hull shape at very > > small cost. > > > > I also like the idea of bulkheads, 2 or more of them, to divide the volume > > up to make flooding, fire, etc a local problem to one section. Bulkheads > > need not be really thick steel since one might see and paint both sides > > regularly. But bulkheads are an entirely different measure to gussets. > > > > Matt > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That makes sense. Thin sheet structures gain stiffness by curvature, > > yes, but also connectedness. The connectedness allows shear loads to be > > transferred from one panel to the next. Try it with a standard 8-flap > > cardboard box (4 flaps on the bottom, 4 on the top). Close the bottom well, > > with tape. Fold the top shut but do not tape it. Deform the box, and the > > two top flaps will slide laterally relative to one another. This is because > > no shear force can be transferred from one to the other, so they move. > > Place some tape over the boundary between the flaps on the top, and suddenly > > the shape of the box is locked. > > > > > > > > > > From the description of what you say though, the doghouse and cockpit are > > not in. So you still have free edges of deck sheets. To save yourself > > some tiny deformation of the hull, which might manifest itself as a little > > up and down, out of plane deflection in the deck edge where it is currently > > attached to nothing, leave the cross brace in for a moment. Once something > > is welded to the inner edge of the deck, something that is stiff in the up > > and down direction, like the cabin sides and cockpit sides, there is less > > possibility of this free-edge deflection. > > > > > > > > > > The reason is, tack-welding sheets at sharp angles (like 70-110 degrees) > > it is sort of like a lever. Every time one tacks in another sheet, > > essentially at right angles to the previous one, the first sheet is > > stiffened greatly by the in-plane stiffness of the second sheet. The small > > out-of-plane deflections of the second sheet are the only degree of freedom > > left. The first sheet has very little mechanical advantage over this degree > > of freedom (like a really short lever) but can cause largish deflections > > with tremendous forces. The lever works both ways though, the largish out > > of plane deflections of the second sheet's free edge have a tremendous > > mechanical advantage over the rest of the hull. Forcing that free edge > > straight takes a relatively small force through a largish distance, and > > applies huge forces on the hull to deflect it very slightly, to put its > > shape back to the deck-flat shape when the brace was in. > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, when Brent was pulling inside the hull, with the decks on, he > > was working at the hard end of the lever. > > > > > > > > > > Flattening the decks by hand, while tacking in the cockpit sides and > > cabin sides will not be as hard as deforming the hull, but might be more > > force than one can apply with one hand while using the welder in the other. > > Leaving that brace in until one has turned the second angle, on the deck, > > to the cockpit sides and cabin sides, is like putting a lever on lever. > > Not only is the hull more rigidly held, the deck free edge is no longer free > > and can't buckle out of plane. Lastly, forcing the now free edge of the > > cockpit sides and cabin sides right (assuming the brace is removed) may not > > be necessary, and will be far easier because you are taking advantage of the > > mechanical advantage of the lever *squared*. > > > > > > > > > > This is likely too fine of a distinction for most. One more come-along > > will solve a lot of problems, but I like things to line up like they are > > supposed to, without having doubts of where that deflection is coming from. > > I also feel this leads to a design with the minimum of built-in stress > > which just makes it stronger relative to outside forces. So I would leave > > the brace in for now. For practicality reasons, the entire dog house or > > cockpit might be constructed as a unit, not on the boat, say in a garage, > > and then lifted into place as a unit. I would leave the brace in until it > > is tacked down, just to keep the deck sheets as flat as the day you tacked > > them down, and avoid uncertainty later. > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:42:39 +0000 > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once all the decks are on ,it is locked. We once tried to change it > > after all the decks were on, and ended up breaking the handle off a 3 ton > > come along, without moving it a sixteenth of an inch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, > > pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull > > by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near > > the centerline. > > > > > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the > > transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all > > the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > > > > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit > > and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > > > > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but > > naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap > > back in! > > > > > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > Kim. > > > > > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they > > are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a > > "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to > > be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the > > ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24654|24571|2010-12-03 19:25:28|brentswain38|Re: Alu hull in Origami|If I were rich , and bored , I'd consider the ultimate, a steel hull and decks, with an aluminium cabin and wheelhouse. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > Ben, > > There is absolutely no question that steel can be a fine boatbuilding material. But given that there are tens of thousands of well-built aluminum boats, from canoes and dinghies, to commercial vessels, to military ships, I think that there should also be no question that aluminum can be an excellent boat hull material. Even Bernard Moitessier stated he thought the next boat he built might be in aluminum. > > A search on the web shows that there are a number of successful amateur-built aluminum boats in existence. Amazon sells books on making boats out of aluminum. I'll have to admit that I was quite surprised at the number of folks on this forum who scoffed at the idea of an amateur-built aluminum boat, and who didn't realize how easy it is to machine aluminum -- much easier than machining mild steel -- though welding aluminum is a little bit harder (but not much, with a good machine). > > Anyway, my original question was for suggestions on how to design _any_ origami hull -- steel or aluminum. It appears that you need either very sophisticated software, or that you make models by trial and error. Someone suggest that the sections of an origami hull are made up of sections of cylinders, cones, and sheets, with some small areas of compound curves. Is there a manual way, that a draftsman might use, to work backwards from a hull concept to an origami flat panel? > > Thanks to all for your suggestions. > > John > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:06:39PM -0000, jhess314 wrote: > > > Ben > > > I agree that the marine alloys are very competitive with steel for > > > boat building. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. > > > > That's not exactly what I said or implied - I simply mentioned that some > > aluminum alloys are in the same strength range as steel. In terms of > > amateur boat-building, though, I don't think that any aluminum alloy can > > come near providing the ease, convenience, flexibility, or workability > > of steel. > > > > > It's very easy to cut up aluminum sheet on the ground with a > > > carbide-blade power saw -- far easier and with less distortion than > > > cutting steel with a torch. And many other common woodworking tools > > > can be used as well, which reducing the amount of expensive > > > steel-working tools one has to acquire. > > > > I can't say that I know of any expensive steel-working tools that are > > necessary for building a boat - and certainly none where the equivalent > > for working in aluminum wouldn't be more expensive (usually much more > > expensive.) What, other than a buzzbox, a propane torch, some grinders, > > and some comealongs, do you see as both necessary and expensive for > > building a steel boat? > > > > > And you don't have to worry > > > about rain rusting the aluminum -- either before or after the boat is > > > built. No need to paint an aluminum boat, either inside or out, > > > except for anti-fouling. > > > > Which is quite a challenge in itself. I have a few friends with aluminum > > boats, and not only do they trouble finding appropriate paint these days > > - one of them has to sail to Columbia just to have access to the good > > stuff - but they also have to go through all sorts of arcane rituals to > > get it to stick. > > > > > Not having to paint a boat is a big savings, > > > both in initial cost as well as in ongoing maintenance. Also, while > > > the cost/pound of aluminum is three times higher than for mild steel, > > > you don't need nearly as many pounds of aluminum as steel to build a > > > boat. > > > > That's an interesting statement - especially since every claim to > > aluminum being as strong as steel inevitably begins with "pound for > > pound, ..." Given that, your statement implies that aluminum boats > > aren't as strong as steel ones - since there are fewer pounds involved. > > > > (As I understand it, in practice, that's not true; aluminum hulls > > usually end up weighing about the same as steel ones. The whole point is > > that you can use heavier-gauge aluminum to reach about the same > > strength.) > > > > > I'm curious what I said, or didn't say, which led you to write "given > > > the demonstrated level of knowledge by the person asking the original > > > question...he has little if any experience with metalworking in > > > general." > > > > It just seemed, based on the kind of questions that you were asking, > > that you weren't very familiar with the pertinent issues. My apologies > > if I was mistaken. > > > > > > | 24655|24645|2010-12-03 19:31:59|brentswain38|Re: OT: Boat registration in Canada|I've sailed a lot of countries with a provincial number and met a lot of others doing so, no problems. The only thing registry does is make it easy for someone to put a lien on your boat and make it stick,something with can't be done with provincial number. That is why banks wont lend money on a boat which is not registered. If you pay cash, no problem. Registry also makes you re register every three years which will eventualy cost you each time. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Max" wrote: > > This question is off-topic, but I'm addressing it to this group because many of you live in the Northwest, and might have bought boats cross-border. > > I've in something of a bind with a boat I bought last year. It's a steel boat originally built in Canada, but currently registered in the US. I am the third owner. To make things simple, I'll refer to the first owner as Albert and the second owner as Bob. Bob bought the boat from Albert shortly before Albert's death. It was bought with a personal mortgage from Bob to Albert. Bob paid for the boat in full, but Albert didn't give him a Satisfaction of Mortgage paper to send to the Coast Guard before he died. Now, Albert is dead and Bob can't get in touch with any surviving family. > > The result is that Bob can't get a Deletion paper from the US Coast Guard Registry. In turn, without this Deletion paper, I can't register the boat in Canada. > > Am I totally screwed? Should I just abandon the boat and cut my losses? Or is there some way to get around this? I've thought of foregoing registration altogether and just getting a provincial license, which doesn't ask for a deletion from the previous registry. Would I be able to sail internationally with the boat, using only provincial license papers? I've also thought that it would be possible to register the boat as a Canadian newbuild, but that's pretty shady. > > -Maxime > | 24656|24571|2010-12-03 19:48:59|Barney Treadway|Re: Alu hull in Origami|I don't think i'd ever like dissimilar metals together in a marine environment, just me tho. brentswain38 wrote: >If I were rich , and bored , I'd consider the ultimate, a steel hull and decks, with an aluminium cabin and wheelhouse. > >--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: >> >> Ben, >> >> There is absolutely no question that steel can be a fine boatbuilding material. But given that there are tens of thousands of well-built aluminum boats, from canoes and dinghies, to commercial vessels, to military ships, I think that there should also be no question that aluminum can be an excellent boat hull material. Even Bernard Moitessier stated he thought the next boat he built might be in aluminum. >> >> A search on the web shows that there are a number of successful amateur-built aluminum boats in existence. Amazon sells books on making boats out of aluminum. I'll have to admit that I was quite surprised at the number of folks on this forum who scoffed at the idea of an amateur-built aluminum boat, and who didn't realize how easy it is to machine aluminum -- much easier than machining mild steel -- though welding aluminum is a little bit harder (but not much, with a good machine). >> >> Anyway, my original question was for suggestions on how to design _any_ origami hull -- steel or aluminum. It appears that you need either very sophisticated software, or that you make models by trial and error. Someone suggest that the sections of an origami hull are made up of sections of cylinders, cones, and sheets, with some small areas of compound curves. Is there a manual way, that a draftsman might use, to work backwards from a hull concept to an origami flat panel? >> >> Thanks to all for your suggestions. >> >> John >> >> >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: >> > >> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:06:39PM -0000, jhess314 wrote: >> > > Ben >> > > I agree that the marine alloys are very competitive with steel for >> > > boat building. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. >> > >> > That's not exactly what I said or implied - I simply mentioned that some >> > aluminum alloys are in the same strength range as steel. In terms of >> > amateur boat-building, though, I don't think that any aluminum alloy can >> > come near providing the ease, convenience, flexibility, or workability >> > of steel. >> > >> > > It's very easy to cut up aluminum sheet on the ground with a >> > > carbide-blade power saw -- far easier and with less distortion than >> > > cutting steel with a torch. And many other common woodworking tools >> > > can be used as well, which reducing the amount of expensive >> > > steel-working tools one has to acquire. >> > >> > I can't say that I know of any expensive steel-working tools that are >> > necessary for building a boat - and certainly none where the equivalent >> > for working in aluminum wouldn't be more expensive (usually much more >> > expensive.) What, other than a buzzbox, a propane torch, some grinders, >> > and some comealongs, do you see as both necessary and expensive for >> > building a steel boat? >> > >> > > And you don't have to worry >> > > about rain rusting the aluminum -- either before or after the boat is >> > > built. No need to paint an aluminum boat, either inside or out, >> > > except for anti-fouling. >> > >> > Which is quite a challenge in itself. I have a few friends with aluminum >> > boats, and not only do they trouble finding appropriate paint these days >> > - one of them has to sail to Columbia just to have access to the good >> > stuff - but they also have to go through all sorts of arcane rituals to >> > get it to stick. >> > >> > > Not having to paint a boat is a big savings, >> > > both in initial cost as well as in ongoing maintenance. Also, while >> > > the cost/pound of aluminum is three times higher than for mild steel, >> > > you don't need nearly as many pounds of aluminum as steel to build a >> > > boat. >> > >> > That's an interesting statement - especially since every claim to >> > aluminum being as strong as steel inevitably begins with "pound for >> > pound, ..." Given that, your statement implies that aluminum boats >> > aren't as strong as steel ones - since there are fewer pounds involved. >> > >> > (As I understand it, in practice, that's not true; aluminum hulls >> > usually end up weighing about the same as steel ones. The whole point is >> > that you can use heavier-gauge aluminum to reach about the same >> > strength.) >> > >> > > I'm curious what I said, or didn't say, which led you to write "given >> > > the demonstrated level of knowledge by the person asking the original >> > > question...he has little if any experience with metalworking in >> > > general." >> > >> > It just seemed, based on the kind of questions that you were asking, >> > that you weren't very familiar with the pertinent issues. My apologies >> > if I was mistaken. >> > >> >> > >> > > | 24657|24523|2010-12-03 19:56:49|Matt Malone|Re: Strength of Orgami|Oh, those pipes are permanent ? OK. That changes things. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 00:22:35 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Strength of Orgami Pipes from the inside deck edge to the chine, do the same thing structurally , far more effectively, with none of the problems. It only takes two of them per side. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > Under deck edge gussets be carefull there they would need to connect on a > deck beam and the bottom run down to the top stringer. Terminating the > gussets on the hull plating would cause a hard spot that will crack the > plating . > Tom > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > This was " At what point is the hull shape "locked"? " In my last post, I > > explained how sheets meeting at near-right angles (70-110 degrees) tend to > > stiffen each other because they transfer shear flow. I also talked about > > free edges, and how closing the box makes the box more stiff, and by certain > > measures stronger. > > > > The engineer in me likes to tell the entire story, not just the best parts > > of it. I have noted in various construction photos like this: > > > > http://theboat.smugmug.com/Boats/Kim/14192611_nezSR#1092933216_8sNrt > > > > That the deck and hull, and other near-right angle joints come together and > > are welded. So long as everything is connected, and stays connected, the > > orgami shell has egg-like stiffness, and maybe strength. The only thing > > the orgami shape really guarantees is stiffness, and the hull might actually > > be "brittle" meaning, really good stiffness, but no plasticity to speak of > > at that stress level, really more of a buckling-like loss of strength until > > there is some secondary reinforcement after partial collapse. > > > > Take an empty aluminium pop can for instance. If one is careful, a 200 lb > > man can balance on one, but once it starts to go, it quickly crushes down > > to one third or less of its height. This buckling is a brittle behaviour of > > the structure, even though the material is very tough. Once crushed down, > > the crush of the can starts to reinforce the can again, and the collapse > > stops. If one is balanced on a can and a second person very carefully > > touches the side of the can with something like the eraser end of a pencil, > > the can's collapse will occur immediately. Buckling is unstable and leads > > to brittle-like failures of structures. > > > > In a frame-design boat, there is a lot more steel in the frames, at > > stations down the length of the boat. Buckling is different -- there is a > > lot of inter-frame buckling, and frames can prevent buckles from involving > > the entire hull. If one has seen a lot of pictures of old freighters, then > > one is used to seeing the golf-ball dimpling effect of inter-frame buckling > > on old rusty freighters that have pounded in waves. > > > > > > http://my.qoop.com/store/Photogenic-Asia---Royalty-Free-Images-3201258271360100/Old-Freighter-by-Shi-Yali-qpps_9751215685575943/ > > > > The frames also experience more stiffening as buckling proceeds than a > > skin-hull would. Placing all of the weight of the steel in the skin > > certainly creates greater initial stiffness, but gives up the reinforcing > > properties of frames once buckling starts. > > > > One possible failure mode of an orgami is a seam letting go. What is the > > danger of a seam letting go? The local stiffness of the hull goes down. > > The two plates are now not reinforcing each other the same way. With a > > reduction in stiffness, at the same force levels, the deflections increase, > > locally. The two plates can buckle. Take a 2 liter cardboard milk > > container with a plastic screw-top. Cut a 2cm long cut in along one of the > > edges of the carton half way down the side. Compare it to a similar > > container with no cut. If one compresses the container end-to-end, the cut > > may open up like eyelids. > > > > With increased deflections, the local stresses at the part of the seam that > > is still holding on, immediately adjacent to the opening, increase. If the > > stresses are cyclic, like from a sea, the seam can flex back and forth -- > > like a coat hanger -- a particular section of seam can fatigue in just a few > > cycles and the seam separation can advance. The more it advances, the less > > stiff the hull becomes and the more it deflects, and the more force at that > > part of the seam still just holding on. If an orgami seam starts to go, it > > can zipper a little more with each wave. > > > > Now, steel vs. fibreglass (real mat fibreglass not chop-spray boats): No > > comparison, the steel is stronger, but the joints might not be stronger. > > Try breaking a coathanger. Try breaking a 3/16" rod of fibreglass. Also, > > fibreglass, a much less stiff material to start out with, that is made > > thicker, so would tend to create less stress concentration. Also, > > fibreglass mat layups are very resistant to zippering, they hinge and fray, > > but tend not to zipper. Where would this be better ? Probably nowhere in > > practicality, this is not an argument for fibreglass boats, just an > > observation of how a much weaker material is exploited well to get good over > > all properties for a hull. Therefore much greater hull strength should be > > possible with steel. > > > > After looking at the construction photos of several orgamis, I see a flat > > deck meeting a flat topsides. Both are stiff in-plane, and both are > > stiffened by the other out of plane, but the stiffening of the joint in flex > > comes from 3 dimensional effects. A more direct stiffening might be used, > > using gusset plates, or internal webs. Here is a web page that talks about > > gusset plates on a beam structure. > > > > http://www.strand7.com/html/Webnotes/Gusset.htm > > > > These gussets , or small mini-frames if you will, might be welding into > > inside corners on the inside of the hull. They would contribute slightly to > > stiffness of the boat, however, they contribute significantly to > > "toughness". Once a boat buckles, these frames have to stretch a lot, and > > keep stretching the more it buckles. Also, if a seam starts to let go, the > > opening might easily stop at a gusset web. > > > > Each gusset might weigh a pound or two, and welding in one every foot on > > all interior corners, would add about 100-200 pounds to the weight of a 26' > > boat. Maybe every 2 feet would work almost as well. Don't know, have not > > run the numbers. > > > > An orgami without gussets, looking at a seam opening problem should look to > > the construction methods -- get a chain-winch across the gap to hold it > > closed (reduce deflections which would reduce the tendency for a seam to > > run), and rejoin the edges ASAP to re-establish shear flow. > > > > I am not suggesting an orgami might spontaneously peel like a banana, > > however there is no reason not to invest a small amount of weight, and time, > > and probably no new material (gussets might come from scraps) putting direct > > stiffness into one aspect of the orgami hull -- seam hinging -- and at the > > same time, provide stop-points for seam failures. Gussets would add to the > > forces needed to continue buckling that initially stiff steel shell. > > Providing more capacity to continue carrying loads after the hull begins to > > yield is a type of toughness. Gussets would seem to confer more of the > > steel's natural strength and toughness to the overall hull shape at very > > small cost. > > > > I also like the idea of bulkheads, 2 or more of them, to divide the volume > > up to make flooding, fire, etc a local problem to one section. Bulkheads > > need not be really thick steel since one might see and paint both sides > > regularly. But bulkheads are an entirely different measure to gussets. > > > > Matt > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That makes sense. Thin sheet structures gain stiffness by curvature, > > yes, but also connectedness. The connectedness allows shear loads to be > > transferred from one panel to the next. Try it with a standard 8-flap > > cardboard box (4 flaps on the bottom, 4 on the top). Close the bottom well, > > with tape. Fold the top shut but do not tape it. Deform the box, and the > > two top flaps will slide laterally relative to one another. This is because > > no shear force can be transferred from one to the other, so they move. > > Place some tape over the boundary between the flaps on the top, and suddenly > > the shape of the box is locked. > > > > > > > > > > From the description of what you say though, the doghouse and cockpit are > > not in. So you still have free edges of deck sheets. To save yourself > > some tiny deformation of the hull, which might manifest itself as a little > > up and down, out of plane deflection in the deck edge where it is currently > > attached to nothing, leave the cross brace in for a moment. Once something > > is welded to the inner edge of the deck, something that is stiff in the up > > and down direction, like the cabin sides and cockpit sides, there is less > > possibility of this free-edge deflection. > > > > > > > > > > The reason is, tack-welding sheets at sharp angles (like 70-110 degrees) > > it is sort of like a lever. Every time one tacks in another sheet, > > essentially at right angles to the previous one, the first sheet is > > stiffened greatly by the in-plane stiffness of the second sheet. The small > > out-of-plane deflections of the second sheet are the only degree of freedom > > left. The first sheet has very little mechanical advantage over this degree > > of freedom (like a really short lever) but can cause largish deflections > > with tremendous forces. The lever works both ways though, the largish out > > of plane deflections of the second sheet's free edge have a tremendous > > mechanical advantage over the rest of the hull. Forcing that free edge > > straight takes a relatively small force through a largish distance, and > > applies huge forces on the hull to deflect it very slightly, to put its > > shape back to the deck-flat shape when the brace was in. > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, when Brent was pulling inside the hull, with the decks on, he > > was working at the hard end of the lever. > > > > > > > > > > Flattening the decks by hand, while tacking in the cockpit sides and > > cabin sides will not be as hard as deforming the hull, but might be more > > force than one can apply with one hand while using the welder in the other. > > Leaving that brace in until one has turned the second angle, on the deck, > > to the cockpit sides and cabin sides, is like putting a lever on lever. > > Not only is the hull more rigidly held, the deck free edge is no longer free > > and can't buckle out of plane. Lastly, forcing the now free edge of the > > cockpit sides and cabin sides right (assuming the brace is removed) may not > > be necessary, and will be far easier because you are taking advantage of the > > mechanical advantage of the lever *squared*. > > > > > > > > > > This is likely too fine of a distinction for most. One more come-along > > will solve a lot of problems, but I like things to line up like they are > > supposed to, without having doubts of where that deflection is coming from. > > I also feel this leads to a design with the minimum of built-in stress > > which just makes it stronger relative to outside forces. So I would leave > > the brace in for now. For practicality reasons, the entire dog house or > > cockpit might be constructed as a unit, not on the boat, say in a garage, > > and then lifted into place as a unit. I would leave the brace in until it > > is tacked down, just to keep the deck sheets as flat as the day you tacked > > them down, and avoid uncertainty later. > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:42:39 +0000 > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once all the decks are on ,it is locked. We once tried to change it > > after all the decks were on, and ended up breaking the handle off a 3 ton > > come along, without moving it a sixteenth of an inch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, > > pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull > > by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near > > the centerline. > > > > > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the > > transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all > > the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > > > > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit > > and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > > > > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but > > naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap > > back in! > > > > > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > Kim. > > > > > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they > > are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a > > "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to > > be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the > > ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24658|24523|2010-12-03 20:58:41|Matt Malone|Re: Strength of Orgami|The doubling of plates in the bilge was not clear from the photos. Doubling plates does a lot more than double strength for a shell / plate structure, it increases it by a factor of 8. If the plates added are 50% thicker than the original hull (for 2.5x thicker in total), that is 15.6 times stronger. It is not surprising one can bounce over reefs and the other stories you relate. The pipes, I did not recall seeing those in other's boat photos, and they looked temporary in Kim's. My mistake in assuming they were temporary. Certainly, putting some beams, pipes, etc through the free volume of the hull over longer dimensions than a gusset have the potential to be far more effective than gussets. Also, more material ( a 4-5' pipe verses a 4" gusset) is more material to absorb energy, more robust. As for sealing the boat and the fire goes out, absolutely right for a fire near the middle. FYI, leave it shut for 5+ minutes after you are sure the fire is out, so the heat disperses otherwise the fire might re-ignite from a hot surface. For a fire near a hatch or vent, leave it shut longer, or cover the hatch/vent with plastic or do your best to toss water through the cracks to rule out the possibility of a smoldering fire from a little draft. Bulkheads -- OK structurally irrelevant. Stepping my mast can be done by one person. Problem is, it relies heavily on that one person and things going right. Any number of small unplanned-for things can happen. So I have a spar and pulley system I use. I call it my Oh Crap insurance. Bulkheads seem like cheap Oh Crap insurance against so many things, even small things ... like ... While one is away on shore for a week, and there is a little leak in through-hull hose or something. Yep, 3 feet of water in my main cabin and galley is not likely, but, my bunk in the forward cabin is guaranteed to be dry, as is my engine -- a good night's sleep and one less thing to say Oh Crap about. Spill some diesel in the aft section because, I don't know, last time I was crawling around in there I nudged the vent line for the tank, and it pops off when it is overfilled at a commercial pump on some island. Well at least the diesel does not soak into the wood in the middle section, or the fumes give me a wicked headache in the morning. Watermaker hose comes off, or springs a leak jetting at 2000psi -- close the bulkhead hatch find the fuse and pull it without worrying about catching it in the ear. Battery comes lose and spills, go ahead and throw buckets of seawater in that section to dillute the spilled electrolyte -- no worry of it soaking everything else. Front hatch or vent or chain locker starts ingesting water at a rate of liters per wave and I do not notice for a an hour.... oh well, I still have somewhere dry to sleep for a couple days until things lighten up and I can hang stuff to dry. And fires... when they are smothered by closing hatches, and go out that way, they produce lots of toxic compounds... it would be nice if at least some of the pillows and bedding are not permeated with the stench. Stuff happens. In particular for me, being more certain that what sleep I can afford is good makes the rest of it just so much easier to handle without cursing. I find good sleep, makes my decisions better too. Being certain that my cruising partner has a good nights sleep, makes it so much easier to deal with things while I am not getting cursed at. I was never considering bulkheads as structure, just separation for Oh crap moments, and not asteroid-rare occurrences. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 00:01:30 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Strength of Orgami The hull deck joint is anything but two flat surfaces comming together. There is considerable longitudinal curve in the the topsides of any sailing hull, which changes the dynamics drastcially, Ditto the chines, which are two curves comming together, the curved topsides and the curved bottom plate, a drastic difference, structurally, from two flat surfaces comming together. Longitudinals, running as they do, along the curve of the hull, are far more effective in resisting buckling than the relatively straight transverse frames of a hard chine, transverse framed hull. Transverse frames, being straight, are under a bending load only. Longitudinals are under a compression load. Its far easier to bend a flat bar on edge than to compress an angle longitudinal on end, especially when its welded inside a steel hull. The need for gussets along the hull deck joint is eliminated by the pipes for the mast support and deck support, from the inside of the hull cabin side joint to the chine, eliminating any movement there. They, supporting the cabinside, a beam on edge, and curved longitudinaly as well, make such gussets, structurally, totally irrelevant. I use cheap filler for my interior, made from mismatched oil based paint , mixed with talc. If there were any movement in my hull, it would have cracked out long ago. None has, in 26 years and tens of thousands of ocean crossing miles, in all weathers, and cruising 11 months a year for most of those 26 years. That is far more definitive than any paper calculations on flexing. As one can put a 100 ton hydraulic jack from one chine to the opposite hull deck joint, and crank it to full extension without changing the hull shape in any measureable way, except to stretch and dent the pate at the end of the jack, Transverse bulkheads in my boats are structuraly, totally irrelevant. The odds of punching a hole in a boat under 50 feet made of 3/16th plate, in open ocean, are so remote as to make watertight bulkheads a bit like buying asteroid collision insurance. For fire , my brother a retired fireman, says that if you seal the boat airtight, there is not enough oxygen to support a fire for very long. He's seen that happen in a departmnment store. A friend with a 35 ft Colvisn Saugeen witch, had his oil stove overflow. It burned a 2 ft circle above the stove, before the fire went out, due to lack of oxygen, despite there being plenty of unburned diesel fuel around. There was not enough to burn a way thru the wooden hatches nor plastic vents or ports. Seal a steel boat, and the fire wont last long enought to do much damage. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > This was " At what point is the hull shape "locked"? " In my last post, I explained how sheets meeting at near-right angles (70-110 degrees) tend to stiffen each other because they transfer shear flow. I also talked about free edges, and how closing the box makes the box more stiff, and by certain measures stronger. > > The engineer in me likes to tell the entire story, not just the best parts of it. I have noted in various construction photos like this: > > http://theboat.smugmug.com/Boats/Kim/14192611_nezSR#1092933216_8sNrt > > That the deck and hull, and other near-right angle joints come together and are welded. So long as everything is connected, and stays connected, the orgami shell has egg-like stiffness, and maybe strength. The only thing the orgami shape really guarantees is stiffness, and the hull might actually be "brittle" meaning, really good stiffness, but no plasticity to speak of at that stress level, really more of a buckling-like loss of strength until there is some secondary reinforcement after partial collapse. > > Take an empty aluminium pop can for instance. If one is careful, a 200 lb man can balance on one, but once it starts to go, it quickly crushes down to one third or less of its height. This buckling is a brittle behaviour of the structure, even though the material is very tough. Once crushed down, the crush of the can starts to reinforce the can again, and the collapse stops. If one is balanced on a can and a second person very carefully touches the side of the can with something like the eraser end of a pencil, the can's collapse will occur immediately. Buckling is unstable and leads to brittle-like failures of structures. > > In a frame-design boat, there is a lot more steel in the frames, at stations down the length of the boat. Buckling is different -- there is a lot of inter-frame buckling, and frames can prevent buckles from involving the entire hull. If one has seen a lot of pictures of old freighters, then one is used to seeing the golf-ball dimpling effect of inter-frame buckling on old rusty freighters that have pounded in waves. > > http://my.qoop.com/store/Photogenic-Asia---Royalty-Free-Images-3201258271360100/Old-Freighter-by-Shi-Yali-qpps_9751215685575943/ > > The frames also experience more stiffening as buckling proceeds than a skin-hull would. Placing all of the weight of the steel in the skin certainly creates greater initial stiffness, but gives up the reinforcing properties of frames once buckling starts. > > One possible failure mode of an orgami is a seam letting go. What is the danger of a seam letting go? The local stiffness of the hull goes down. The two plates are now not reinforcing each other the same way. With a reduction in stiffness, at the same force levels, the deflections increase, locally. The two plates can buckle. Take a 2 liter cardboard milk container with a plastic screw-top. Cut a 2cm long cut in along one of the edges of the carton half way down the side. Compare it to a similar container with no cut. If one compresses the container end-to-end, the cut may open up like eyelids. > > With increased deflections, the local stresses at the part of the seam that is still holding on, immediately adjacent to the opening, increase. If the stresses are cyclic, like from a sea, the seam can flex back and forth -- like a coat hanger -- a particular section of seam can fatigue in just a few cycles and the seam separation can advance. The more it advances, the less stiff the hull becomes and the more it deflects, and the more force at that part of the seam still just holding on. If an orgami seam starts to go, it can zipper a little more with each wave. > > Now, steel vs. fibreglass (real mat fibreglass not chop-spray boats): No comparison, the steel is stronger, but the joints might not be stronger. Try breaking a coathanger. Try breaking a 3/16" rod of fibreglass. Also, fibreglass, a much less stiff material to start out with, that is made thicker, so would tend to create less stress concentration. Also, fibreglass mat layups are very resistant to zippering, they hinge and fray, but tend not to zipper. Where would this be better ? Probably nowhere in practicality, this is not an argument for fibreglass boats, just an observation of how a much weaker material is exploited well to get good over all properties for a hull. Therefore much greater hull strength should be possible with steel. > > After looking at the construction photos of several orgamis, I see a flat deck meeting a flat topsides. Both are stiff in-plane, and both are stiffened by the other out of plane, but the stiffening of the joint in flex comes from 3 dimensional effects. A more direct stiffening might be used, using gusset plates, or internal webs. Here is a web page that talks about gusset plates on a beam structure. > > http://www.strand7.com/html/Webnotes/Gusset.htm > > These gussets , or small mini-frames if you will, might be welding into inside corners on the inside of the hull. They would contribute slightly to stiffness of the boat, however, they contribute significantly to "toughness". Once a boat buckles, these frames have to stretch a lot, and keep stretching the more it buckles. Also, if a seam starts to let go, the opening might easily stop at a gusset web. > > Each gusset might weigh a pound or two, and welding in one every foot on all interior corners, would add about 100-200 pounds to the weight of a 26' boat. Maybe every 2 feet would work almost as well. Don't know, have not run the numbers. > > An orgami without gussets, looking at a seam opening problem should look to the construction methods -- get a chain-winch across the gap to hold it closed (reduce deflections which would reduce the tendency for a seam to run), and rejoin the edges ASAP to re-establish shear flow. > > I am not suggesting an orgami might spontaneously peel like a banana, however there is no reason not to invest a small amount of weight, and time, and probably no new material (gussets might come from scraps) putting direct stiffness into one aspect of the orgami hull -- seam hinging -- and at the same time, provide stop-points for seam failures. Gussets would add to the forces needed to continue buckling that initially stiff steel shell. Providing more capacity to continue carrying loads after the hull begins to yield is a type of toughness. Gussets would seem to confer more of the steel's natural strength and toughness to the overall hull shape at very small cost. > > I also like the idea of bulkheads, 2 or more of them, to divide the volume up to make flooding, fire, etc a local problem to one section. Bulkheads need not be really thick steel since one might see and paint both sides regularly. But bulkheads are an entirely different measure to gussets. > > Matt > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > That makes sense. Thin sheet structures gain stiffness by curvature, yes, but also connectedness. The connectedness allows shear loads to be transferred from one panel to the next. Try it with a standard 8-flap cardboard box (4 flaps on the bottom, 4 on the top). Close the bottom well, with tape. Fold the top shut but do not tape it. Deform the box, and the two top flaps will slide laterally relative to one another. This is because no shear force can be transferred from one to the other, so they move. Place some tape over the boundary between the flaps on the top, and suddenly the shape of the box is locked. > > > > > > From the description of what you say though, the doghouse and cockpit are not in. So you still have free edges of deck sheets. To save yourself some tiny deformation of the hull, which might manifest itself as a little up and down, out of plane deflection in the deck edge where it is currently attached to nothing, leave the cross brace in for a moment. Once something is welded to the inner edge of the deck, something that is stiff in the up and down direction, like the cabin sides and cockpit sides, there is less possibility of this free-edge deflection. > > > > > > The reason is, tack-welding sheets at sharp angles (like 70-110 degrees) it is sort of like a lever. Every time one tacks in another sheet, essentially at right angles to the previous one, the first sheet is stiffened greatly by the in-plane stiffness of the second sheet. The small out-of-plane deflections of the second sheet are the only degree of freedom left. The first sheet has very little mechanical advantage over this degree of freedom (like a really short lever) but can cause largish deflections with tremendous forces. The lever works both ways though, the largish out of plane deflections of the second sheet's free edge have a tremendous mechanical advantage over the rest of the hull. Forcing that free edge straight takes a relatively small force through a largish distance, and applies huge forces on the hull to deflect it very slightly, to put its shape back to the deck-flat shape when the brace was in. > > > > > > Therefore, when Brent was pulling inside the hull, with the decks on, he was working at the hard end of the lever. > > > > > > Flattening the decks by hand, while tacking in the cockpit sides and cabin sides will not be as hard as deforming the hull, but might be more force than one can apply with one hand while using the welder in the other. Leaving that brace in until one has turned the second angle, on the deck, to the cockpit sides and cabin sides, is like putting a lever on lever. Not only is the hull more rigidly held, the deck free edge is no longer free and can't buckle out of plane. Lastly, forcing the now free edge of the cockpit sides and cabin sides right (assuming the brace is removed) may not be necessary, and will be far easier because you are taking advantage of the mechanical advantage of the lever *squared*. > > > > > > This is likely too fine of a distinction for most. One more come-along will solve a lot of problems, but I like things to line up like they are supposed to, without having doubts of where that deflection is coming from. I also feel this leads to a design with the minimum of built-in stress which just makes it stronger relative to outside forces. So I would leave the brace in for now. For practicality reasons, the entire dog house or cockpit might be constructed as a unit, not on the boat, say in a garage, and then lifted into place as a unit. I would leave the brace in until it is tacked down, just to keep the deck sheets as flat as the day you tacked them down, and avoid uncertainty later. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:42:39 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"? > > > > > > > > > > > Once all the decks are on ,it is locked. We once tried to change it after all the decks were on, and ended up breaking the handle off a 3 ton come along, without moving it a sixteenth of an inch. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near the centerline. > > > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap back in! > > > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24659|24523|2010-12-03 23:59:14|arctichusky44|Re: Strength of Orgami|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > On rocks intialy the only two points to make contact are the chines and the bottom of the keel. These points are amidships and low so adding a lot of extra weight there will have negligible effect on performance. > The bottom of my keel is half inch plate, with a lot of ballast on top. I reinforce the chines with a layer of 3/16 plate inside,for 6 inches either side, on single keelers, making it 3/8th inch thick there. There would be no harm in making it 1/2 inch or more there. > In many groundings , if the chines and the bottom of the keel survive, the rocks wont touch anywhere else. > When one my 36 footers grounded and spent the night on Flora Islet SE of Hornby Island, in a 35 knot southeasterly, there was only paint damage. The skipper credited that to the doubler plate inside the chines. He had pounded on Mittlenach Island for a night in similar conditions, with no damage. > This can be done on boats of other materials as well. I've seen fibreglas boats lost, which would have survived, had they had a bit more thickness on the turn of the bilge. > One of my 36 footers pounded in 8 to 12 foot surf on the west coast of the Baja for 16 days, before being pulled off thru 8 to 12 foot surf, being picked up and dropped on hard packed sand , every wave for 1/4 mile with no serious damage . Another pounded across 300 yards of Fijian coral reef ouside Suva, before being dragged the same distance back to deep water by a tug, , without any structral damage whatever. > These tests are far mre relevant than speculation. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > This one maybe? > > > > http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachments/boat-design/18059d1199668116-steel-yacht-construction-steelhull.jpg > > > > http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/steel-yacht-construction-20860.html > > > > Yes, impressive. > > > > But the anvil will not always be round. On cannot rip a pop can over a round railing. Sometimes the rocks are pointy, leading to folds. > > > > Also, few freighters back up for a second run at it; whereas, waves and rocks, seldom is there just one bump. > > > > I am not talking about the really likely, but if one is talking the trouble to weld tons of steel, then why not put in a couple hundred more pounds to directly reinforcing the least reinforced point ? My argument is only to get the most out of the material. > > > > Matt > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: akenai@ > > Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:48:15 -0800 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Strength of Orgami > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone had a photo of a Swain boat that was T-Boned by a freighter and made it > > > > back to port. > > > > > > > > Aaron > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 24660|24523|2010-12-04 06:11:43|Kim|Re: Strength of Orgami|Hi Matt ... Yes, the pipes that are currently supporting the inboard edges of my side decks (http://x.co/KvQp) are only *very* temporary. I only put them there to stop the sidedecks moving too much as I stomped around on them. They'll all come out once the cabin is on. Later, I'll be putting in permanent support pipes from the deck edge to the chine. Probably 2 per side: one next to the mast-arch support, and another aft of that somewhere along the cabin length. Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > The doubling of plates in the bilge was not clear from the photos. Doubling plates does a lot more than double strength for a shell / plate structure, it increases it by a factor of 8. If the plates added are 50% thicker than the original hull (for 2.5x thicker in total), that is 15.6 times stronger. It is not surprising one can bounce over reefs and the other stories you relate. > > The pipes, I did not recall seeing those in other's boat photos, and they looked temporary in Kim's. My mistake in assuming they were temporary. Certainly, putting some beams, pipes, etc through the free volume of the hull over longer dimensions than a gusset have the potential to be far more effective than gussets. Also, more material ( a 4-5' pipe verses a 4" gusset) is more material to absorb energy, more robust. _______________________________________________________________ | 24661|24645|2010-12-04 14:30:01|Barney Treadway|Re: OT: Boat registration in Canada|Since the group is now hopping with activity.... Is there an length guideline to origami? I'm looking at a 54ft hull now and was wondering if the pulling together gets a bit cumbersome at this length? Its also over 13' beam. Thanks! On 12/3/2010 5:31 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > I've sailed a lot of countries with a provincial number and met a lot > of others doing so, no problems. > The only thing registry does is make it easy for someone to put a lien > on your boat and make it stick,something with can't be done with > provincial number. That is why banks wont lend money on a boat which > is not registered. If you pay cash, no problem. Registry also makes > you re register every three years which will eventualy cost you each > time. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "Max" wrote: > > > > This question is off-topic, but I'm addressing it to this group > because many of you live in the Northwest, and might have bought boats > cross-border. > > > > I've in something of a bind with a boat I bought last year. It's a > steel boat originally built in Canada, but currently registered in the > US. I am the third owner. To make things simple, I'll refer to the > first owner as Albert and the second owner as Bob. Bob bought the boat > from Albert shortly before Albert's death. It was bought with a > personal mortgage from Bob to Albert. Bob paid for the boat in full, > but Albert didn't give him a Satisfaction of Mortgage paper to send to > the Coast Guard before he died. Now, Albert is dead and Bob can't get > in touch with any surviving family. > > > > The result is that Bob can't get a Deletion paper from the US Coast > Guard Registry. In turn, without this Deletion paper, I can't register > the boat in Canada. > > > > Am I totally screwed? Should I just abandon the boat and cut my > losses? Or is there some way to get around this? I've thought of > foregoing registration altogether and just getting a provincial > license, which doesn't ask for a deletion from the previous registry. > Would I be able to sail internationally with the boat, using only > provincial license papers? I've also thought that it would be possible > to register the boat as a Canadian newbuild, but that's pretty shady. > > > > -Maxime > > > > -- Barney Treadway www.ecomshare.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24662|24523|2010-12-04 14:32:24|rhko47|Re: Strength of Orgami|What size should these pipes by in a 26-footer? In a 36 footer? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Pipes from the inside deck edge to the chine, do the same thing structurally , far more effectively, with none of the problems. It only takes two of them per side. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > > > Under deck edge gussets be carefull there they would need to connect on a > > deck beam and the bottom run down to the top stringer. Terminating the > > gussets on the hull plating would cause a hard spot that will crack the > > plating . > > Tom > > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This was " At what point is the hull shape "locked"? " In my last post, I > > > explained how sheets meeting at near-right angles (70-110 degrees) tend to > > > stiffen each other because they transfer shear flow. I also talked about > > > free edges, and how closing the box makes the box more stiff, and by certain > > > measures stronger. > > > > > > The engineer in me likes to tell the entire story, not just the best parts > > > of it. I have noted in various construction photos like this: > > > > > > http://theboat.smugmug.com/Boats/Kim/14192611_nezSR#1092933216_8sNrt > > > > > > That the deck and hull, and other near-right angle joints come together and > > > are welded. So long as everything is connected, and stays connected, the > > > orgami shell has egg-like stiffness, and maybe strength. The only thing > > > the orgami shape really guarantees is stiffness, and the hull might actually > > > be "brittle" meaning, really good stiffness, but no plasticity to speak of > > > at that stress level, really more of a buckling-like loss of strength until > > > there is some secondary reinforcement after partial collapse. > > > > > > Take an empty aluminium pop can for instance. If one is careful, a 200 lb > > > man can balance on one, but once it starts to go, it quickly crushes down > > > to one third or less of its height. This buckling is a brittle behaviour of > > > the structure, even though the material is very tough. Once crushed down, > > > the crush of the can starts to reinforce the can again, and the collapse > > > stops. If one is balanced on a can and a second person very carefully > > > touches the side of the can with something like the eraser end of a pencil, > > > the can's collapse will occur immediately. Buckling is unstable and leads > > > to brittle-like failures of structures. > > > > > > In a frame-design boat, there is a lot more steel in the frames, at > > > stations down the length of the boat. Buckling is different -- there is a > > > lot of inter-frame buckling, and frames can prevent buckles from involving > > > the entire hull. If one has seen a lot of pictures of old freighters, then > > > one is used to seeing the golf-ball dimpling effect of inter-frame buckling > > > on old rusty freighters that have pounded in waves. > > > > > > > > > http://my.qoop.com/store/Photogenic-Asia---Royalty-Free-Images-3201258271360100/Old-Freighter-by-Shi-Yali-qpps_9751215685575943/ > > > > > > The frames also experience more stiffening as buckling proceeds than a > > > skin-hull would. Placing all of the weight of the steel in the skin > > > certainly creates greater initial stiffness, but gives up the reinforcing > > > properties of frames once buckling starts. > > > > > > One possible failure mode of an orgami is a seam letting go. What is the > > > danger of a seam letting go? The local stiffness of the hull goes down. > > > The two plates are now not reinforcing each other the same way. With a > > > reduction in stiffness, at the same force levels, the deflections increase, > > > locally. The two plates can buckle. Take a 2 liter cardboard milk > > > container with a plastic screw-top. Cut a 2cm long cut in along one of the > > > edges of the carton half way down the side. Compare it to a similar > > > container with no cut. If one compresses the container end-to-end, the cut > > > may open up like eyelids. > > > > > > With increased deflections, the local stresses at the part of the seam that > > > is still holding on, immediately adjacent to the opening, increase. If the > > > stresses are cyclic, like from a sea, the seam can flex back and forth -- > > > like a coat hanger -- a particular section of seam can fatigue in just a few > > > cycles and the seam separation can advance. The more it advances, the less > > > stiff the hull becomes and the more it deflects, and the more force at that > > > part of the seam still just holding on. If an orgami seam starts to go, it > > > can zipper a little more with each wave. > > > > > > Now, steel vs. fibreglass (real mat fibreglass not chop-spray boats): No > > > comparison, the steel is stronger, but the joints might not be stronger. > > > Try breaking a coathanger. Try breaking a 3/16" rod of fibreglass. Also, > > > fibreglass, a much less stiff material to start out with, that is made > > > thicker, so would tend to create less stress concentration. Also, > > > fibreglass mat layups are very resistant to zippering, they hinge and fray, > > > but tend not to zipper. Where would this be better ? Probably nowhere in > > > practicality, this is not an argument for fibreglass boats, just an > > > observation of how a much weaker material is exploited well to get good over > > > all properties for a hull. Therefore much greater hull strength should be > > > possible with steel. > > > > > > After looking at the construction photos of several orgamis, I see a flat > > > deck meeting a flat topsides. Both are stiff in-plane, and both are > > > stiffened by the other out of plane, but the stiffening of the joint in flex > > > comes from 3 dimensional effects. A more direct stiffening might be used, > > > using gusset plates, or internal webs. Here is a web page that talks about > > > gusset plates on a beam structure. > > > > > > http://www.strand7.com/html/Webnotes/Gusset.htm > > > > > > These gussets , or small mini-frames if you will, might be welding into > > > inside corners on the inside of the hull. They would contribute slightly to > > > stiffness of the boat, however, they contribute significantly to > > > "toughness". Once a boat buckles, these frames have to stretch a lot, and > > > keep stretching the more it buckles. Also, if a seam starts to let go, the > > > opening might easily stop at a gusset web. > > > > > > Each gusset might weigh a pound or two, and welding in one every foot on > > > all interior corners, would add about 100-200 pounds to the weight of a 26' > > > boat. Maybe every 2 feet would work almost as well. Don't know, have not > > > run the numbers. > > > > > > An orgami without gussets, looking at a seam opening problem should look to > > > the construction methods -- get a chain-winch across the gap to hold it > > > closed (reduce deflections which would reduce the tendency for a seam to > > > run), and rejoin the edges ASAP to re-establish shear flow. > > > > > > I am not suggesting an orgami might spontaneously peel like a banana, > > > however there is no reason not to invest a small amount of weight, and time, > > > and probably no new material (gussets might come from scraps) putting direct > > > stiffness into one aspect of the orgami hull -- seam hinging -- and at the > > > same time, provide stop-points for seam failures. Gussets would add to the > > > forces needed to continue buckling that initially stiff steel shell. > > > Providing more capacity to continue carrying loads after the hull begins to > > > yield is a type of toughness. Gussets would seem to confer more of the > > > steel's natural strength and toughness to the overall hull shape at very > > > small cost. > > > > > > I also like the idea of bulkheads, 2 or more of them, to divide the volume > > > up to make flooding, fire, etc a local problem to one section. Bulkheads > > > need not be really thick steel since one might see and paint both sides > > > regularly. But bulkheads are an entirely different measure to gussets. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That makes sense. Thin sheet structures gain stiffness by curvature, > > > yes, but also connectedness. The connectedness allows shear loads to be > > > transferred from one panel to the next. Try it with a standard 8-flap > > > cardboard box (4 flaps on the bottom, 4 on the top). Close the bottom well, > > > with tape. Fold the top shut but do not tape it. Deform the box, and the > > > two top flaps will slide laterally relative to one another. This is because > > > no shear force can be transferred from one to the other, so they move. > > > Place some tape over the boundary between the flaps on the top, and suddenly > > > the shape of the box is locked. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the description of what you say though, the doghouse and cockpit are > > > not in. So you still have free edges of deck sheets. To save yourself > > > some tiny deformation of the hull, which might manifest itself as a little > > > up and down, out of plane deflection in the deck edge where it is currently > > > attached to nothing, leave the cross brace in for a moment. Once something > > > is welded to the inner edge of the deck, something that is stiff in the up > > > and down direction, like the cabin sides and cockpit sides, there is less > > > possibility of this free-edge deflection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason is, tack-welding sheets at sharp angles (like 70-110 degrees) > > > it is sort of like a lever. Every time one tacks in another sheet, > > > essentially at right angles to the previous one, the first sheet is > > > stiffened greatly by the in-plane stiffness of the second sheet. The small > > > out-of-plane deflections of the second sheet are the only degree of freedom > > > left. The first sheet has very little mechanical advantage over this degree > > > of freedom (like a really short lever) but can cause largish deflections > > > with tremendous forces. The lever works both ways though, the largish out > > > of plane deflections of the second sheet's free edge have a tremendous > > > mechanical advantage over the rest of the hull. Forcing that free edge > > > straight takes a relatively small force through a largish distance, and > > > applies huge forces on the hull to deflect it very slightly, to put its > > > shape back to the deck-flat shape when the brace was in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, when Brent was pulling inside the hull, with the decks on, he > > > was working at the hard end of the lever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Flattening the decks by hand, while tacking in the cockpit sides and > > > cabin sides will not be as hard as deforming the hull, but might be more > > > force than one can apply with one hand while using the welder in the other. > > > Leaving that brace in until one has turned the second angle, on the deck, > > > to the cockpit sides and cabin sides, is like putting a lever on lever. > > > Not only is the hull more rigidly held, the deck free edge is no longer free > > > and can't buckle out of plane. Lastly, forcing the now free edge of the > > > cockpit sides and cabin sides right (assuming the brace is removed) may not > > > be necessary, and will be far easier because you are taking advantage of the > > > mechanical advantage of the lever *squared*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is likely too fine of a distinction for most. One more come-along > > > will solve a lot of problems, but I like things to line up like they are > > > supposed to, without having doubts of where that deflection is coming from. > > > I also feel this leads to a design with the minimum of built-in stress > > > which just makes it stronger relative to outside forces. So I would leave > > > the brace in for now. For practicality reasons, the entire dog house or > > > cockpit might be constructed as a unit, not on the boat, say in a garage, > > > and then lifted into place as a unit. I would leave the brace in until it > > > is tacked down, just to keep the deck sheets as flat as the day you tacked > > > them down, and avoid uncertainty later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:42:39 +0000 > > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once all the decks are on ,it is locked. We once tried to change it > > > after all the decks were on, and ended up breaking the handle off a 3 ton > > > come along, without moving it a sixteenth of an inch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > > > > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, > > > pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull > > > by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near > > > the centerline. > > > > > > > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the > > > transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all > > > the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > > > > > > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit > > > and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > > > > > > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but > > > naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap > > > back in! > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > > > Kim. > > > > > > > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they > > > are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a > > > "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to > > > be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the > > > ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 24663|24523|2010-12-05 00:57:42|Ben Okopnik|Re: Strength of Orgami|On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 08:58:30PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > Stepping my mast can be done by one person. Problem is, it relies > heavily on that one person and things going right. Somewhat unrelated, but this reminds me. I love my tabernacle system. :) I needed to replace a cap shroud, straighten a slightly rotated spreader, remake a part of the triatic stay, and remount the hub and blades on the wind generator at the top of the mizzen, and I decided that all that was just a bit too much to do while dangling at the end of a halyard. So, I took off the mizzen boom, and... 1) Tied a loop in the end of a 100'-line around the mizzen, ran it over to the main mast, clipped it into the main halyard, and winched it up snug until it slid up to the spreaders; this left a Long tail that hung down to the deck. 2) Released the triatic stay from the main mast and let it drop back to the mizzen (it hung down to about 6' above the deck.) 3) Released the forward lowers on the mizzen, and pulled out the locking pin at the base of the mizzen tabernacle. 4) Went back to the winch on the main mast and *slowly* lowered the mizzen (actually, slacked off a little and then "bounced" the mizzen a couple of times to get it started "falling over" backwards, then went back and eased the halyard.) The somewhat fiddly part was not in getting the thing down but in getting it inboard: when the pivot bolt is in place and the mast is all the way down, it rests on the aft rail... about five feet of it inboard, and twenty feet hanging over the stern (obviously, I have to leave enough tension on the halyard to support most of the weight!) The trick in making it come in under control is to use a loom: I tied a line to a cleat on the tabernacle, led it over the mast, then back down to a cleat on the other side of the tabernacle. When I pulled out the pivot pin, the foot of the mast tried to come up - and was stopped by the loom. Another loom over the mast where it went over the stern rail, a little adjustment (slipping a little more of the halyard) at the main winch, and in it came. The looms also acted as friction brakes and stopped it after just a couple of inches each time. http://okopnik.com/images/mizzen_down.jpg That was yesterday, and I got all the stuff I needed to do while it was down done just before dark. This morning, I reversed the process: looped one of the mizzen halyards over the stern rail, led it back to one of the mizzen winches, and "walked" the mast aft by cranking that winch (dropping the mast head every few inches of travel, since the foot would come down and dig into the cabin top otherwise.) Once it was more or less over the tabernacle, I rotated the mast by using a 2-by-4 for leverage until it was set just right, tightened the aft loom (which started it into the tabernacle) and eased the one on the pulpit, then tightened up on the main halyard. A bit of fiddling, a couple of light taps with a rubber mallet, and it was perfectly positioned for the pivot pin. (Incidentally, I greased the insides of the tabernacle cheeks with Teflon grease before starting the return trip.) Once the pivot pin was in, I released the looms and cranked the main winch... and up it came. A couple of whacks with the rubber mallet, and the locking pin went in. About an hour to take it down and get in inboard; about 90 minutes to reverse the process - and *much* safer, at least in my mind, than letting some ham-fisted crane operator tear up my spar and rigging. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24664|24664|2010-12-05 13:23:58|wild_explorer|Sail-plan|What sail plan allows to DOUBLE sail area compare to sloop sail-plan, but still keep it simple to manage? I will probably need more sails area than sloop sail-plan allows. I have no preferences at this point. Main requirement - reasonable balance between performance and easy handling. More "relaxed" handling is preferred ;). Any idea (even non-traditional) welcome. P.S. Just pros/cons - mast set, rigging, etc. No "religious" wars please ;))| 24665|24664|2010-12-05 13:30:56|Carl Volkwein|Re: Sail-plan|Have you considered a "chineese"sail?you could have more sail aria and it's easier to reef. carlvolkwein --- On Sun, 12/5/10, wild_explorer wrote: From: wild_explorer Subject: [origamiboats] Sail-plan To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, December 5, 2010, 1:23 PM   What sail plan allows to DOUBLE sail area compare to sloop sail-plan, but still keep it simple to manage? I will probably need more sails area than sloop sail-plan allows. I have no preferences at this point. Main requirement - reasonable balance between performance and easy handling. More "relaxed" handling is preferred ;). Any idea (even non-traditional) welcome. P.S. Just pros/cons - mast set, rigging, etc. No "religious" wars please ;)) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24666|24664|2010-12-05 14:03:57|wild_explorer|Re: Sail-plan|I was thinking about it... It was several "heated" discussions in this group about it. What is important (any sail-plan) - mast stress, rigging weight, effect on stability, sails availability/easy_to_make, simplicity of handling (suitable for RC boat simulation). --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Carl Volkwein wrote: > > Have you considered a "chineese"sail?you could have more sail aria and it's easier to reef. > carlvolkwein > > --- On Sun, 12/5/10, wild_explorer wrote: > > From: wild_explorer > Subject: [origamiboats] Sail-plan > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Sunday, December 5, 2010, 1:23 PM > > > What sail plan allows to DOUBLE sail area compare to sloop sail-plan, but still keep it simple to manage? I will probably need more sails area than sloop sail-plan allows. I have no preferences at this point. Main requirement - reasonable balance between performance and easy handling. More "relaxed" handling is preferred ;). > > > > Any idea (even non-traditional) welcome. > > > > P.S. Just pros/cons - mast set, rigging, etc. No "religious" wars please ;)) > | 24667|24645|2010-12-05 15:50:40|scott|Re: OT: Boat registration in Canada|That would be some huge pieces of steel to handle. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Barney Treadway wrote: > > Since the group is now hopping with activity.... > > Is there an length guideline to origami? I'm looking at a 54ft hull now > and was wondering if the pulling together gets a bit cumbersome at this > length? Its also over 13' beam. > > Thanks! > > On 12/3/2010 5:31 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > I've sailed a lot of countries with a provincial number and met a lot > > of others doing so, no problems. > > The only thing registry does is make it easy for someone to put a lien > > on your boat and make it stick,something with can't be done with > > provincial number. That is why banks wont lend money on a boat which > > is not registered. If you pay cash, no problem. Registry also makes > > you re register every three years which will eventualy cost you each > > time. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , "Max" wrote: > > > > > > This question is off-topic, but I'm addressing it to this group > > because many of you live in the Northwest, and might have bought boats > > cross-border. > > > > > > I've in something of a bind with a boat I bought last year. It's a > > steel boat originally built in Canada, but currently registered in the > > US. I am the third owner. To make things simple, I'll refer to the > > first owner as Albert and the second owner as Bob. Bob bought the boat > > from Albert shortly before Albert's death. It was bought with a > > personal mortgage from Bob to Albert. Bob paid for the boat in full, > > but Albert didn't give him a Satisfaction of Mortgage paper to send to > > the Coast Guard before he died. Now, Albert is dead and Bob can't get > > in touch with any surviving family. > > > > > > The result is that Bob can't get a Deletion paper from the US Coast > > Guard Registry. In turn, without this Deletion paper, I can't register > > the boat in Canada. > > > > > > Am I totally screwed? Should I just abandon the boat and cut my > > losses? Or is there some way to get around this? I've thought of > > foregoing registration altogether and just getting a provincial > > license, which doesn't ask for a deletion from the previous registry. > > Would I be able to sail internationally with the boat, using only > > provincial license papers? I've also thought that it would be possible > > to register the boat as a Canadian newbuild, but that's pretty shady. > > > > > > -Maxime > > > > > > > > > -- > > Barney Treadway > www.ecomshare.com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24668|24668|2010-12-05 22:11:36|sunbear|External Mast Roller Furling|I am just wondering here--saw two boats recently with external mast roller furling. The roller furling was mounted behind the main mast without any fairing such as the Italian Bamar units--does anyone have any experience as to their effectiveness??--I was wondering because there seems to be quite a gap between mast and furling sail. As age proceeds I am pondering ways to ease sail handling. I could make one of these myself. Thanks for any input. MarkH| 24669|24664|2010-12-05 22:13:39|Mark Hamill|Re: Sail-plan|Wild Explorer--my cat has a mizzen and twin headsails which allows one lots of small sails which would be easier to handle and on several occasions in a blow I have doused the main and just had the mizzen and one foresail up--with perfect balance---HOWEVER--The extra mast and all its rigging adds weight and complication which should be considered. Oh yes, there is also room for a mizzen stay sail which is supposed to be a real workhorse. Lots of sails to play with if that's what you want. Phil Bolger's book 103 Sailing Rigs "Straight talk" might be of real interest. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24670|24664|2010-12-06 10:57:02|scott|Re: Sail-plan|If you visit the junkrig group here on yahoo you will find that there are a few members that have been driving the experimentation in performance with Junk Rigs. My understanding is that the newer generations of designs are sailing to windward with the same performance as a bermuda rig on the same hull. Some of the designs are a bit complicated while some of them are pretty simple and only involve panels that are pre cambered. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > I was thinking about it... It was several "heated" discussions in this group about it. What is important (any sail-plan) - mast stress, rigging weight, effect on stability, sails availability/easy_to_make, simplicity of handling (suitable for RC boat simulation). > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Carl Volkwein wrote: > > > > Have you considered a "chineese"sail?you could have more sail aria and it's easier to reef. > > carlvolkwein > > > > --- On Sun, 12/5/10, wild_explorer wrote: > > > > From: wild_explorer > > Subject: [origamiboats] Sail-plan > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Sunday, December 5, 2010, 1:23 PM > > > > > > > What sail plan allows to DOUBLE sail area compare to sloop sail-plan, but still keep it simple to manage? I will probably need more sails area than sloop sail-plan allows. I have no preferences at this point. Main requirement - reasonable balance between performance and easy handling. More "relaxed" handling is preferred ;). > > > > > > > > Any idea (even non-traditional) welcome. > > > > > > > > P.S. Just pros/cons - mast set, rigging, etc. No "religious" wars please ;)) > > > | 24671|24664|2010-12-06 15:24:35|wild_explorer|Re: Sail-plan|How about compare different rigs from ENGINEERING point of view (pros/cons)? This will leave aside preferences. I know very little about different rigs, that why I am asking group. Main criteria - possibility to be operated by radio control on sailboat model. Why? Because if it could be operated by RC, it is more likely would easier for 1 person to handle the sails. Let start from Bermuda/Marconi sloop rig (with my limited knowledge): Pros: - One of the best-performing rigs per square foot of sail area and is fast for up-wind passages - Simple, easy to operate by RC (with no overlapping jib) - Sails availability on second-hand market - No battens (preferred) - Very common rig, lot of information on how to adjust and balance - Possibility of lowering the mast - Limited numbers of lines Cons: - Requires support (extra weight) - Single tall mast affect sails carrying ability (less possible sail area). - May require furlings for easier handling/rifing – affect stability (add weight). Adding secondary jib (to add sail area) may require bowsprit (make it Cutter?). - Heavy load/stress on mast – strong material for the mast. - Winches for sheets' handling - Has boom (need to raise it above head level or "duck" under) I would like to see similar list for others rigs.| 24672|24668|2010-12-06 16:06:25|brentswain38|Re: External Mast Roller Furling|Friends on Lasquetti did that on a 40 foter with one of my furlers. Works well, but whips around in a head wind when furled . They have to wrap a halyard around it. Being so close to the mast, it puts a huge compresion load on the mast , so you want a stiff mast section. I can put a slab reef in my main in under a minute , so I don't see the point in a main furler. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "sunbear" wrote: > > I am just wondering here--saw two boats recently with external mast roller furling. The roller furling was mounted behind the main mast without any fairing such as the Italian Bamar units--does anyone have any experience as to their effectiveness??--I was wondering because there seems to be quite a gap between mast and furling sail. As age proceeds I am pondering ways to ease sail handling. I could make one of these myself. Thanks for any input. MarkH > | 24673|24523|2010-12-06 16:17:17|brentswain38|Re: Strength of Orgami|A good engine web at the front of the engine mounts wil keep any engine oil from creeping any further foreward, as well as any batteries behind it. It also adds sructuraly to keeping the ngine vibrations down and quiet by connecting the engine mounts to the centreline. My composter head has reduced my thru hulls to one, the sink drain. The top of the sink being well above the waterline makes it a stand pipe. A fire anywhere in a sealed small boat wil go out very quickly, as there is not enought air to sustain any more than a minimal amount of combustion. Aluminium hatces on a steel boat with super strong hinges and tie downs, as I show in my book are not going anywhere. It's only the flimsey commercially made ones that are any serious risk. My anchor winch eliminates the chain locker. The stanchions I put on the pivot point of the mast , enabling me to attach lower shrouds to them , eliminates the sideways movement of raising the mast , drasticaly reducing the liabilities of doing the operation. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > The doubling of plates in the bilge was not clear from the photos. Doubling plates does a lot more than double strength for a shell / plate structure, it increases it by a factor of 8. If the plates added are 50% thicker than the original hull (for 2.5x thicker in total), that is 15.6 times stronger. It is not surprising one can bounce over reefs and the other stories you relate. > > The pipes, I did not recall seeing those in other's boat photos, and they looked temporary in Kim's. My mistake in assuming they were temporary. Certainly, putting some beams, pipes, etc through the free volume of the hull over longer dimensions than a gusset have the potential to be far more effective than gussets. Also, more material ( a 4-5' pipe verses a 4" gusset) is more material to absorb energy, more robust. > > As for sealing the boat and the fire goes out, absolutely right for a fire near the middle. FYI, leave it shut for 5+ minutes after you are sure the fire is out, so the heat disperses otherwise the fire might re-ignite from a hot surface. For a fire near a hatch or vent, leave it shut longer, or cover the hatch/vent with plastic or do your best to toss water through the cracks to rule out the possibility of a smoldering fire from a little draft. > > Bulkheads -- OK structurally irrelevant. Stepping my mast can be done by one person. Problem is, it relies heavily on that one person and things going right. Any number of small unplanned-for things can happen. So I have a spar and pulley system I use. I call it my Oh Crap insurance. Bulkheads seem like cheap Oh Crap insurance against so many things, even small things ... like ... While one is away on shore for a week, and there is a little leak in through-hull hose or something. Yep, 3 feet of water in my main cabin and galley is not likely, but, my bunk in the forward cabin is guaranteed to be dry, as is my engine -- a good night's sleep and one less thing to say Oh Crap about. Spill some diesel in the aft section because, I don't know, last time I was crawling around in there I nudged the vent line for the tank, and it pops off when it is overfilled at a commercial pump on some island. Well at least the diesel does not soak into the wood in the middle section, or the fumes give me a wicked headache in the morning. Watermaker hose comes off, or springs a leak jetting at 2000psi -- close the bulkhead hatch find the fuse and pull it without worrying about catching it in the ear. Battery comes lose and spills, go ahead and throw buckets of seawater in that section to dillute the spilled electrolyte -- no worry of it soaking everything else. Front hatch or vent or chain locker starts ingesting water at a rate of liters per wave and I do not notice for a an hour.... oh well, I still have somewhere dry to sleep for a couple days until things lighten up and I can hang stuff to dry. And fires... when they are smothered by closing hatches, and go out that way, they produce lots of toxic compounds... it would be nice if at least some of the pillows and bedding are not permeated with the stench. Stuff happens. In particular for me, being more certain that what sleep I can afford is good makes the rest of it just so much easier to handle without cursing. I find good sleep, makes my decisions better too. Being certain that my cruising partner has a good nights sleep, makes it so much easier to deal with things while I am not getting cursed at. I was never considering bulkheads as structure, just separation for Oh crap moments, and not asteroid-rare occurrences. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 00:01:30 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Strength of Orgami > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The hull deck joint is anything but two flat surfaces comming together. There is considerable longitudinal curve in the the topsides of any sailing hull, which changes the dynamics drastcially, Ditto the chines, which are two curves comming together, the curved topsides and the curved bottom plate, a drastic difference, structurally, from two flat surfaces comming together. > > Longitudinals, running as they do, along the curve of the hull, are far more effective in resisting buckling than the relatively straight transverse frames of a hard chine, transverse framed hull. > > Transverse frames, being straight, are under a bending load only. Longitudinals are under a compression load. Its far easier to bend a flat bar on edge than to compress an angle longitudinal on end, especially when its welded inside a steel hull. > > The need for gussets along the hull deck joint is eliminated by the pipes for the mast support and deck support, from the inside of the hull cabin side joint to the chine, eliminating any movement there. They, supporting the cabinside, a beam on edge, and curved longitudinaly as well, make such gussets, structurally, totally irrelevant. > > I use cheap filler for my interior, made from mismatched oil based paint , mixed with talc. If there were any movement in my hull, it would have cracked out long ago. None has, in 26 years and tens of thousands of ocean crossing miles, in all weathers, and cruising 11 months a year for most of those 26 years. That is far more definitive than any paper calculations on flexing. > > As one can put a 100 ton hydraulic jack from one chine to the opposite hull deck joint, and crank it to full extension without changing the hull shape in any measureable way, except to stretch and dent the pate at the end of the jack, Transverse bulkheads in my boats are structuraly, totally irrelevant. > > The odds of punching a hole in a boat under 50 feet made of 3/16th plate, in open ocean, are so remote as to make watertight bulkheads a bit like buying asteroid collision insurance. > > For fire , my brother a retired fireman, says that if you seal the boat airtight, there is not enough oxygen to support a fire for very long. He's seen that happen in a departmnment store. A friend with a 35 ft Colvisn Saugeen witch, had his oil stove overflow. It burned a 2 ft circle above the stove, before the fire went out, due to lack of oxygen, despite there being plenty of unburned diesel fuel around. There was not enough to burn a way thru the wooden hatches nor plastic vents or ports. > > Seal a steel boat, and the fire wont last long enought to do much damage. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This was " At what point is the hull shape "locked"? " In my last post, I explained how sheets meeting at near-right angles (70-110 degrees) tend to stiffen each other because they transfer shear flow. I also talked about free edges, and how closing the box makes the box more stiff, and by certain measures stronger. > > > > > > The engineer in me likes to tell the entire story, not just the best parts of it. I have noted in various construction photos like this: > > > > > > http://theboat.smugmug.com/Boats/Kim/14192611_nezSR#1092933216_8sNrt > > > > > > That the deck and hull, and other near-right angle joints come together and are welded. So long as everything is connected, and stays connected, the orgami shell has egg-like stiffness, and maybe strength. The only thing the orgami shape really guarantees is stiffness, and the hull might actually be "brittle" meaning, really good stiffness, but no plasticity to speak of at that stress level, really more of a buckling-like loss of strength until there is some secondary reinforcement after partial collapse. > > > > > > Take an empty aluminium pop can for instance. If one is careful, a 200 lb man can balance on one, but once it starts to go, it quickly crushes down to one third or less of its height. This buckling is a brittle behaviour of the structure, even though the material is very tough. Once crushed down, the crush of the can starts to reinforce the can again, and the collapse stops. If one is balanced on a can and a second person very carefully touches the side of the can with something like the eraser end of a pencil, the can's collapse will occur immediately. Buckling is unstable and leads to brittle-like failures of structures. > > > > > > In a frame-design boat, there is a lot more steel in the frames, at stations down the length of the boat. Buckling is different -- there is a lot of inter-frame buckling, and frames can prevent buckles from involving the entire hull. If one has seen a lot of pictures of old freighters, then one is used to seeing the golf-ball dimpling effect of inter-frame buckling on old rusty freighters that have pounded in waves. > > > > > > http://my.qoop.com/store/Photogenic-Asia---Royalty-Free-Images-3201258271360100/Old-Freighter-by-Shi-Yali-qpps_9751215685575943/ > > > > > > The frames also experience more stiffening as buckling proceeds than a skin-hull would. Placing all of the weight of the steel in the skin certainly creates greater initial stiffness, but gives up the reinforcing properties of frames once buckling starts. > > > > > > One possible failure mode of an orgami is a seam letting go. What is the danger of a seam letting go? The local stiffness of the hull goes down. The two plates are now not reinforcing each other the same way. With a reduction in stiffness, at the same force levels, the deflections increase, locally. The two plates can buckle. Take a 2 liter cardboard milk container with a plastic screw-top. Cut a 2cm long cut in along one of the edges of the carton half way down the side. Compare it to a similar container with no cut. If one compresses the container end-to-end, the cut may open up like eyelids. > > > > > > With increased deflections, the local stresses at the part of the seam that is still holding on, immediately adjacent to the opening, increase. If the stresses are cyclic, like from a sea, the seam can flex back and forth -- like a coat hanger -- a particular section of seam can fatigue in just a few cycles and the seam separation can advance. The more it advances, the less stiff the hull becomes and the more it deflects, and the more force at that part of the seam still just holding on. If an orgami seam starts to go, it can zipper a little more with each wave. > > > > > > Now, steel vs. fibreglass (real mat fibreglass not chop-spray boats): No comparison, the steel is stronger, but the joints might not be stronger. Try breaking a coathanger. Try breaking a 3/16" rod of fibreglass. Also, fibreglass, a much less stiff material to start out with, that is made thicker, so would tend to create less stress concentration. Also, fibreglass mat layups are very resistant to zippering, they hinge and fray, but tend not to zipper. Where would this be better ? Probably nowhere in practicality, this is not an argument for fibreglass boats, just an observation of how a much weaker material is exploited well to get good over all properties for a hull. Therefore much greater hull strength should be possible with steel. > > > > > > After looking at the construction photos of several orgamis, I see a flat deck meeting a flat topsides. Both are stiff in-plane, and both are stiffened by the other out of plane, but the stiffening of the joint in flex comes from 3 dimensional effects. A more direct stiffening might be used, using gusset plates, or internal webs. Here is a web page that talks about gusset plates on a beam structure. > > > > > > http://www.strand7.com/html/Webnotes/Gusset.htm > > > > > > These gussets , or small mini-frames if you will, might be welding into inside corners on the inside of the hull. They would contribute slightly to stiffness of the boat, however, they contribute significantly to "toughness". Once a boat buckles, these frames have to stretch a lot, and keep stretching the more it buckles. Also, if a seam starts to let go, the opening might easily stop at a gusset web. > > > > > > Each gusset might weigh a pound or two, and welding in one every foot on all interior corners, would add about 100-200 pounds to the weight of a 26' boat. Maybe every 2 feet would work almost as well. Don't know, have not run the numbers. > > > > > > An orgami without gussets, looking at a seam opening problem should look to the construction methods -- get a chain-winch across the gap to hold it closed (reduce deflections which would reduce the tendency for a seam to run), and rejoin the edges ASAP to re-establish shear flow. > > > > > > I am not suggesting an orgami might spontaneously peel like a banana, however there is no reason not to invest a small amount of weight, and time, and probably no new material (gussets might come from scraps) putting direct stiffness into one aspect of the orgami hull -- seam hinging -- and at the same time, provide stop-points for seam failures. Gussets would add to the forces needed to continue buckling that initially stiff steel shell. Providing more capacity to continue carrying loads after the hull begins to yield is a type of toughness. Gussets would seem to confer more of the steel's natural strength and toughness to the overall hull shape at very small cost. > > > > > > I also like the idea of bulkheads, 2 or more of them, to divide the volume up to make flooding, fire, etc a local problem to one section. Bulkheads need not be really thick steel since one might see and paint both sides regularly. But bulkheads are an entirely different measure to gussets. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That makes sense. Thin sheet structures gain stiffness by curvature, yes, but also connectedness. The connectedness allows shear loads to be transferred from one panel to the next. Try it with a standard 8-flap cardboard box (4 flaps on the bottom, 4 on the top). Close the bottom well, with tape. Fold the top shut but do not tape it. Deform the box, and the two top flaps will slide laterally relative to one another. This is because no shear force can be transferred from one to the other, so they move. Place some tape over the boundary between the flaps on the top, and suddenly the shape of the box is locked. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the description of what you say though, the doghouse and cockpit are not in. So you still have free edges of deck sheets. To save yourself some tiny deformation of the hull, which might manifest itself as a little up and down, out of plane deflection in the deck edge where it is currently attached to nothing, leave the cross brace in for a moment. Once something is welded to the inner edge of the deck, something that is stiff in the up and down direction, like the cabin sides and cockpit sides, there is less possibility of this free-edge deflection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason is, tack-welding sheets at sharp angles (like 70-110 degrees) it is sort of like a lever. Every time one tacks in another sheet, essentially at right angles to the previous one, the first sheet is stiffened greatly by the in-plane stiffness of the second sheet. The small out-of-plane deflections of the second sheet are the only degree of freedom left. The first sheet has very little mechanical advantage over this degree of freedom (like a really short lever) but can cause largish deflections with tremendous forces. The lever works both ways though, the largish out of plane deflections of the second sheet's free edge have a tremendous mechanical advantage over the rest of the hull. Forcing that free edge straight takes a relatively small force through a largish distance, and applies huge forces on the hull to deflect it very slightly, to put its shape back to the deck-flat shape when the brace was in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, when Brent was pulling inside the hull, with the decks on, he was working at the hard end of the lever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Flattening the decks by hand, while tacking in the cockpit sides and cabin sides will not be as hard as deforming the hull, but might be more force than one can apply with one hand while using the welder in the other. Leaving that brace in until one has turned the second angle, on the deck, to the cockpit sides and cabin sides, is like putting a lever on lever. Not only is the hull more rigidly held, the deck free edge is no longer free and can't buckle out of plane. Lastly, forcing the now free edge of the cockpit sides and cabin sides right (assuming the brace is removed) may not be necessary, and will be far easier because you are taking advantage of the mechanical advantage of the lever *squared*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is likely too fine of a distinction for most. One more come-along will solve a lot of problems, but I like things to line up like they are supposed to, without having doubts of where that deflection is coming from. I also feel this leads to a design with the minimum of built-in stress which just makes it stronger relative to outside forces. So I would leave the brace in for now. For practicality reasons, the entire dog house or cockpit might be constructed as a unit, not on the boat, say in a garage, and then lifted into place as a unit. I would leave the brace in until it is tacked down, just to keep the deck sheets as flat as the day you tacked them down, and avoid uncertainty later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:42:39 +0000 > > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once all the decks are on ,it is locked. We once tried to change it after all the decks were on, and ended up breaking the handle off a 3 ton come along, without moving it a sixteenth of an inch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > > > > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near the centerline. > > > > > > > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > > > > > > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > > > > > > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap back in! > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > > > Kim. > > > > > > > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24674|24523|2010-12-06 16:59:41|Matt Malone|Re: Strength of Orgami|Cool. I am not out often, but the next time I am in Vancouver, I will ask about seeing an orgami in person. There is just so much a photo cannot relate. My first boat had one through-hull, the drain. My last one had 1 through-hull, the galley sink -- cockpit drains were above the water line. My latest one has 11. There are 4 big ones for draining the cockpit alone, 2 to drain the deck (bilge pump and sink share those), 2 for the head, one for engine water inlet, one for exhaust, and one I am not certain its original purpose, plugged when I go the boat, way down in the bilge. Two have the original emergency wooden peg plugs still hanging on lanyards on the stop-cocks. And all the bronze stop-cocks are seized... Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 21:17:16 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Strength of Orgami A good engine web at the front of the engine mounts wil keep any engine oil from creeping any further foreward, as well as any batteries behind it. It also adds sructuraly to keeping the ngine vibrations down and quiet by connecting the engine mounts to the centreline. My composter head has reduced my thru hulls to one, the sink drain. The top of the sink being well above the waterline makes it a stand pipe. A fire anywhere in a sealed small boat wil go out very quickly, as there is not enought air to sustain any more than a minimal amount of combustion. Aluminium hatces on a steel boat with super strong hinges and tie downs, as I show in my book are not going anywhere. It's only the flimsey commercially made ones that are any serious risk. My anchor winch eliminates the chain locker. The stanchions I put on the pivot point of the mast , enabling me to attach lower shrouds to them , eliminates the sideways movement of raising the mast , drasticaly reducing the liabilities of doing the operation. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > The doubling of plates in the bilge was not clear from the photos. Doubling plates does a lot more than double strength for a shell / plate structure, it increases it by a factor of 8. If the plates added are 50% thicker than the original hull (for 2.5x thicker in total), that is 15.6 times stronger. It is not surprising one can bounce over reefs and the other stories you relate. > > The pipes, I did not recall seeing those in other's boat photos, and they looked temporary in Kim's. My mistake in assuming they were temporary. Certainly, putting some beams, pipes, etc through the free volume of the hull over longer dimensions than a gusset have the potential to be far more effective than gussets. Also, more material ( a 4-5' pipe verses a 4" gusset) is more material to absorb energy, more robust. > > As for sealing the boat and the fire goes out, absolutely right for a fire near the middle. FYI, leave it shut for 5+ minutes after you are sure the fire is out, so the heat disperses otherwise the fire might re-ignite from a hot surface. For a fire near a hatch or vent, leave it shut longer, or cover the hatch/vent with plastic or do your best to toss water through the cracks to rule out the possibility of a smoldering fire from a little draft. > > Bulkheads -- OK structurally irrelevant. Stepping my mast can be done by one person. Problem is, it relies heavily on that one person and things going right. Any number of small unplanned-for things can happen. So I have a spar and pulley system I use. I call it my Oh Crap insurance. Bulkheads seem like cheap Oh Crap insurance against so many things, even small things ... like ... While one is away on shore for a week, and there is a little leak in through-hull hose or something. Yep, 3 feet of water in my main cabin and galley is not likely, but, my bunk in the forward cabin is guaranteed to be dry, as is my engine -- a good night's sleep and one less thing to say Oh Crap about. Spill some diesel in the aft section because, I don't know, last time I was crawling around in there I nudged the vent line for the tank, and it pops off when it is overfilled at a commercial pump on some island. Well at least the diesel does not soak into the wood in the middle section, or the fumes give me a wicked headache in the morning. Watermaker hose comes off, or springs a leak jetting at 2000psi -- close the bulkhead hatch find the fuse and pull it without worrying about catching it in the ear. Battery comes lose and spills, go ahead and throw buckets of seawater in that section to dillute the spilled electrolyte -- no worry of it soaking everything else. Front hatch or vent or chain locker starts ingesting water at a rate of liters per wave and I do not notice for a an hour.... oh well, I still have somewhere dry to sleep for a couple days until things lighten up and I can hang stuff to dry. And fires... when they are smothered by closing hatches, and go out that way, they produce lots of toxic compounds... it would be nice if at least some of the pillows and bedding are not permeated with the stench. Stuff happens. In particular for me, being more certain that what sleep I can afford is good makes the rest of it just so much easier to handle without cursing. I find good sleep, makes my decisions better too. Being certain that my cruising partner has a good nights sleep, makes it so much easier to deal with things while I am not getting cursed at. I was never considering bulkheads as structure, just separation for Oh crap moments, and not asteroid-rare occurrences. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 00:01:30 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Strength of Orgami > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The hull deck joint is anything but two flat surfaces comming together. There is considerable longitudinal curve in the the topsides of any sailing hull, which changes the dynamics drastcially, Ditto the chines, which are two curves comming together, the curved topsides and the curved bottom plate, a drastic difference, structurally, from two flat surfaces comming together. > > Longitudinals, running as they do, along the curve of the hull, are far more effective in resisting buckling than the relatively straight transverse frames of a hard chine, transverse framed hull. > > Transverse frames, being straight, are under a bending load only. Longitudinals are under a compression load. Its far easier to bend a flat bar on edge than to compress an angle longitudinal on end, especially when its welded inside a steel hull. > > The need for gussets along the hull deck joint is eliminated by the pipes for the mast support and deck support, from the inside of the hull cabin side joint to the chine, eliminating any movement there. They, supporting the cabinside, a beam on edge, and curved longitudinaly as well, make such gussets, structurally, totally irrelevant. > > I use cheap filler for my interior, made from mismatched oil based paint , mixed with talc. If there were any movement in my hull, it would have cracked out long ago. None has, in 26 years and tens of thousands of ocean crossing miles, in all weathers, and cruising 11 months a year for most of those 26 years. That is far more definitive than any paper calculations on flexing. > > As one can put a 100 ton hydraulic jack from one chine to the opposite hull deck joint, and crank it to full extension without changing the hull shape in any measureable way, except to stretch and dent the pate at the end of the jack, Transverse bulkheads in my boats are structuraly, totally irrelevant. > > The odds of punching a hole in a boat under 50 feet made of 3/16th plate, in open ocean, are so remote as to make watertight bulkheads a bit like buying asteroid collision insurance. > > For fire , my brother a retired fireman, says that if you seal the boat airtight, there is not enough oxygen to support a fire for very long. He's seen that happen in a departmnment store. A friend with a 35 ft Colvisn Saugeen witch, had his oil stove overflow. It burned a 2 ft circle above the stove, before the fire went out, due to lack of oxygen, despite there being plenty of unburned diesel fuel around. There was not enough to burn a way thru the wooden hatches nor plastic vents or ports. > > Seal a steel boat, and the fire wont last long enought to do much damage. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This was " At what point is the hull shape "locked"? " In my last post, I explained how sheets meeting at near-right angles (70-110 degrees) tend to stiffen each other because they transfer shear flow. I also talked about free edges, and how closing the box makes the box more stiff, and by certain measures stronger. > > > > > > The engineer in me likes to tell the entire story, not just the best parts of it. I have noted in various construction photos like this: > > > > > > http://theboat.smugmug.com/Boats/Kim/14192611_nezSR#1092933216_8sNrt > > > > > > That the deck and hull, and other near-right angle joints come together and are welded. So long as everything is connected, and stays connected, the orgami shell has egg-like stiffness, and maybe strength. The only thing the orgami shape really guarantees is stiffness, and the hull might actually be "brittle" meaning, really good stiffness, but no plasticity to speak of at that stress level, really more of a buckling-like loss of strength until there is some secondary reinforcement after partial collapse. > > > > > > Take an empty aluminium pop can for instance. If one is careful, a 200 lb man can balance on one, but once it starts to go, it quickly crushes down to one third or less of its height. This buckling is a brittle behaviour of the structure, even though the material is very tough. Once crushed down, the crush of the can starts to reinforce the can again, and the collapse stops. If one is balanced on a can and a second person very carefully touches the side of the can with something like the eraser end of a pencil, the can's collapse will occur immediately. Buckling is unstable and leads to brittle-like failures of structures. > > > > > > In a frame-design boat, there is a lot more steel in the frames, at stations down the length of the boat. Buckling is different -- there is a lot of inter-frame buckling, and frames can prevent buckles from involving the entire hull. If one has seen a lot of pictures of old freighters, then one is used to seeing the golf-ball dimpling effect of inter-frame buckling on old rusty freighters that have pounded in waves. > > > > > > http://my.qoop.com/store/Photogenic-Asia---Royalty-Free-Images-3201258271360100/Old-Freighter-by-Shi-Yali-qpps_9751215685575943/ > > > > > > The frames also experience more stiffening as buckling proceeds than a skin-hull would. Placing all of the weight of the steel in the skin certainly creates greater initial stiffness, but gives up the reinforcing properties of frames once buckling starts. > > > > > > One possible failure mode of an orgami is a seam letting go. What is the danger of a seam letting go? The local stiffness of the hull goes down. The two plates are now not reinforcing each other the same way. With a reduction in stiffness, at the same force levels, the deflections increase, locally. The two plates can buckle. Take a 2 liter cardboard milk container with a plastic screw-top. Cut a 2cm long cut in along one of the edges of the carton half way down the side. Compare it to a similar container with no cut. If one compresses the container end-to-end, the cut may open up like eyelids. > > > > > > With increased deflections, the local stresses at the part of the seam that is still holding on, immediately adjacent to the opening, increase. If the stresses are cyclic, like from a sea, the seam can flex back and forth -- like a coat hanger -- a particular section of seam can fatigue in just a few cycles and the seam separation can advance. The more it advances, the less stiff the hull becomes and the more it deflects, and the more force at that part of the seam still just holding on. If an orgami seam starts to go, it can zipper a little more with each wave. > > > > > > Now, steel vs. fibreglass (real mat fibreglass not chop-spray boats): No comparison, the steel is stronger, but the joints might not be stronger. Try breaking a coathanger. Try breaking a 3/16" rod of fibreglass. Also, fibreglass, a much less stiff material to start out with, that is made thicker, so would tend to create less stress concentration. Also, fibreglass mat layups are very resistant to zippering, they hinge and fray, but tend not to zipper. Where would this be better ? Probably nowhere in practicality, this is not an argument for fibreglass boats, just an observation of how a much weaker material is exploited well to get good over all properties for a hull. Therefore much greater hull strength should be possible with steel. > > > > > > After looking at the construction photos of several orgamis, I see a flat deck meeting a flat topsides. Both are stiff in-plane, and both are stiffened by the other out of plane, but the stiffening of the joint in flex comes from 3 dimensional effects. A more direct stiffening might be used, using gusset plates, or internal webs. Here is a web page that talks about gusset plates on a beam structure. > > > > > > http://www.strand7.com/html/Webnotes/Gusset.htm > > > > > > These gussets , or small mini-frames if you will, might be welding into inside corners on the inside of the hull. They would contribute slightly to stiffness of the boat, however, they contribute significantly to "toughness". Once a boat buckles, these frames have to stretch a lot, and keep stretching the more it buckles. Also, if a seam starts to let go, the opening might easily stop at a gusset web. > > > > > > Each gusset might weigh a pound or two, and welding in one every foot on all interior corners, would add about 100-200 pounds to the weight of a 26' boat. Maybe every 2 feet would work almost as well. Don't know, have not run the numbers. > > > > > > An orgami without gussets, looking at a seam opening problem should look to the construction methods -- get a chain-winch across the gap to hold it closed (reduce deflections which would reduce the tendency for a seam to run), and rejoin the edges ASAP to re-establish shear flow. > > > > > > I am not suggesting an orgami might spontaneously peel like a banana, however there is no reason not to invest a small amount of weight, and time, and probably no new material (gussets might come from scraps) putting direct stiffness into one aspect of the orgami hull -- seam hinging -- and at the same time, provide stop-points for seam failures. Gussets would add to the forces needed to continue buckling that initially stiff steel shell. Providing more capacity to continue carrying loads after the hull begins to yield is a type of toughness. Gussets would seem to confer more of the steel's natural strength and toughness to the overall hull shape at very small cost. > > > > > > I also like the idea of bulkheads, 2 or more of them, to divide the volume up to make flooding, fire, etc a local problem to one section. Bulkheads need not be really thick steel since one might see and paint both sides regularly. But bulkheads are an entirely different measure to gussets. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That makes sense. Thin sheet structures gain stiffness by curvature, yes, but also connectedness. The connectedness allows shear loads to be transferred from one panel to the next. Try it with a standard 8-flap cardboard box (4 flaps on the bottom, 4 on the top). Close the bottom well, with tape. Fold the top shut but do not tape it. Deform the box, and the two top flaps will slide laterally relative to one another. This is because no shear force can be transferred from one to the other, so they move. Place some tape over the boundary between the flaps on the top, and suddenly the shape of the box is locked. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the description of what you say though, the doghouse and cockpit are not in. So you still have free edges of deck sheets. To save yourself some tiny deformation of the hull, which might manifest itself as a little up and down, out of plane deflection in the deck edge where it is currently attached to nothing, leave the cross brace in for a moment. Once something is welded to the inner edge of the deck, something that is stiff in the up and down direction, like the cabin sides and cockpit sides, there is less possibility of this free-edge deflection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason is, tack-welding sheets at sharp angles (like 70-110 degrees) it is sort of like a lever. Every time one tacks in another sheet, essentially at right angles to the previous one, the first sheet is stiffened greatly by the in-plane stiffness of the second sheet. The small out-of-plane deflections of the second sheet are the only degree of freedom left. The first sheet has very little mechanical advantage over this degree of freedom (like a really short lever) but can cause largish deflections with tremendous forces. The lever works both ways though, the largish out of plane deflections of the second sheet's free edge have a tremendous mechanical advantage over the rest of the hull. Forcing that free edge straight takes a relatively small force through a largish distance, and applies huge forces on the hull to deflect it very slightly, to put its shape back to the deck-flat shape when the brace was in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, when Brent was pulling inside the hull, with the decks on, he was working at the hard end of the lever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Flattening the decks by hand, while tacking in the cockpit sides and cabin sides will not be as hard as deforming the hull, but might be more force than one can apply with one hand while using the welder in the other. Leaving that brace in until one has turned the second angle, on the deck, to the cockpit sides and cabin sides, is like putting a lever on lever. Not only is the hull more rigidly held, the deck free edge is no longer free and can't buckle out of plane. Lastly, forcing the now free edge of the cockpit sides and cabin sides right (assuming the brace is removed) may not be necessary, and will be far easier because you are taking advantage of the mechanical advantage of the lever *squared*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is likely too fine of a distinction for most. One more come-along will solve a lot of problems, but I like things to line up like they are supposed to, without having doubts of where that deflection is coming from. I also feel this leads to a design with the minimum of built-in stress which just makes it stronger relative to outside forces. So I would leave the brace in for now. For practicality reasons, the entire dog house or cockpit might be constructed as a unit, not on the boat, say in a garage, and then lifted into place as a unit. I would leave the brace in until it is tacked down, just to keep the deck sheets as flat as the day you tacked them down, and avoid uncertainty later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:42:39 +0000 > > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once all the decks are on ,it is locked. We once tried to change it after all the decks were on, and ended up breaking the handle off a 3 ton come along, without moving it a sixteenth of an inch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > > > > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near the centerline. > > > > > > > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > > > > > > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > > > > > > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap back in! > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > > > Kim. > > > > > > > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24675|24668|2010-12-06 17:15:16|Matt Malone|Re: External Mast Roller Furling|For safety, robustness, ease of repair, mainsail furling should be down-furling / reefing. Toward the boom, not toward the mast. Worst case, no matter how fancy or simple the mechanism, dropping the sail unfurled always remains an option with down-furling/reefing systems. Working on a boom with a flogging sail is dangerous enough. With to the mast, or into the mast systems, what can you do if the mechanism stops ? Let the sail flog ? Risk being over-sailed while climbing the mast to fix it/ clear a jam ? I do not want anything except the most simple and robust pulley up a mast. If a boom system does not work, once the sail is down one can later slab reef or bundle the sail to the boom like a leg of lamb with a line around the boom. Also, I wonder about the aerodynamic effects of a toward the mast furling system too if it is aft of the mast. Then there is the cost. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 21:06:17 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: External Mast Roller Furling Friends on Lasquetti did that on a 40 foter with one of my furlers. Works well, but whips around in a head wind when furled . They have to wrap a halyard around it. Being so close to the mast, it puts a huge compresion load on the mast , so you want a stiff mast section. I can put a slab reef in my main in under a minute , so I don't see the point in a main furler. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "sunbear" wrote: > > I am just wondering here--saw two boats recently with external mast roller furling. The roller furling was mounted behind the main mast without any fairing such as the Italian Bamar units--does anyone have any experience as to their effectiveness??--I was wondering because there seems to be quite a gap between mast and furling sail. As age proceeds I am pondering ways to ease sail handling. I could make one of these myself. Thanks for any input. MarkH > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24676|24668|2010-12-06 22:52:00|Paul Wilson|BS 36 versus Beneteau 38|Howdy, I just got back from helping deliver a Beneteau 381 across the Tasman from Wellington, NZ to Sydney, Australia. It is about 1200 miles and took us just under 12 days. I had a good trip despite some adverse weather and current. We had lots of wind (45 plus knots) on the nose with 4 meter swells the first day or two and then calms followed by a 20 to 25 knot beam reach for the final week. We spent many days under double reefed main and had a strong counter current of up to 2 knots at times so the strong wind at the end of the trip was a blessing. I never expected such a strong easterly current which we encountered so far out, close to 500 miles from Aus. With four people on board and a functioning autopilot, I felt spoiled. I have never slept so much offshore. It will make me seriously think of having crew the next time I sail offshore. Anyway, I can safely say my Origami 36 would have sailed much faster and done the trip at least a day or two quicker despite being heavier and shorter. It would also have been much drier below without all the leaky portholes and shallow sump slopping dirty bilge water everywhere. Healed over, it was impossible to keep the cabin floors dry on the Beneteau. We ran out of fresh water on the final day and were worried about running out of fuel motoring through the high pressure zone while becalmed. This would never happen on such a short trip on a real offshore cruising boat with its much larger water and fuel tanks like I have on my 36..... The trip confirmed (again) what a fantastic boat the Origami (BS 36) is.....I have never seen another 36 footer that can carry what I can and yet rack up the miles on such a consistent basis. Cheers, Paul| 24677|24523|2010-12-06 23:14:33|h|Re: Strength of Orgami|Yeah that anchor well vent does have that tendency to invite gallons per waves onto the bed when you forget to seal it, beating into waves. I figure I took on about a 100 gallons or so before I peeked inside the hatch and discovered the floating floorboards. When I saw water leaking in from under the bed I wondered how I managed to put a hole in the hull without noticing, much cursing, but after seeing the seaweed and dampness of the bed it all became clear, I keep that vent dogged down nowadays. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > The doubling of plates in the bilge was not clear from the photos. Doubling plates does a lot more than double strength for a shell / plate structure, it increases it by a factor of 8. If the plates added are 50% thicker than the original hull (for 2.5x thicker in total), that is 15.6 times stronger. It is not surprising one can bounce over reefs and the other stories you relate. > > The pipes, I did not recall seeing those in other's boat photos, and they looked temporary in Kim's. My mistake in assuming they were temporary. Certainly, putting some beams, pipes, etc through the free volume of the hull over longer dimensions than a gusset have the potential to be far more effective than gussets. Also, more material ( a 4-5' pipe verses a 4" gusset) is more material to absorb energy, more robust. > > As for sealing the boat and the fire goes out, absolutely right for a fire near the middle. FYI, leave it shut for 5+ minutes after you are sure the fire is out, so the heat disperses otherwise the fire might re-ignite from a hot surface. For a fire near a hatch or vent, leave it shut longer, or cover the hatch/vent with plastic or do your best to toss water through the cracks to rule out the possibility of a smoldering fire from a little draft. > > Bulkheads -- OK structurally irrelevant. Stepping my mast can be done by one person. Problem is, it relies heavily on that one person and things going right. Any number of small unplanned-for things can happen. So I have a spar and pulley system I use. I call it my Oh Crap insurance. Bulkheads seem like cheap Oh Crap insurance against so many things, even small things ... like ... While one is away on shore for a week, and there is a little leak in through-hull hose or something. Yep, 3 feet of water in my main cabin and galley is not likely, but, my bunk in the forward cabin is guaranteed to be dry, as is my engine -- a good night's sleep and one less thing to say Oh Crap about. Spill some diesel in the aft section because, I don't know, last time I was crawling around in there I nudged the vent line for the tank, and it pops off when it is overfilled at a commercial pump on some island. Well at least the diesel does not soak into the wood in the middle section, or the fumes give me a wicked headache in the morning. Watermaker hose comes off, or springs a leak jetting at 2000psi -- close the bulkhead hatch find the fuse and pull it without worrying about catching it in the ear. Battery comes lose and spills, go ahead and throw buckets of seawater in that section to dillute the spilled electrolyte -- no worry of it soaking everything else. Front hatch or vent or chain locker starts ingesting water at a rate of liters per wave and I do not notice for a an hour.... oh well, I still have somewhere dry to sleep for a couple days until things lighten up and I can hang stuff to dry. And fires... when they are smothered by closing hatches, and go out that way, they produce lots of toxic compounds... it would be nice if at least some of the pillows and bedding are not permeated with the stench. Stuff happens. In particular for me, being more certain that what sleep I can afford is good makes the rest of it just so much easier to handle without cursing. I find good sleep, makes my decisions better too. Being certain that my cruising partner has a good nights sleep, makes it so much easier to deal with things while I am not getting cursed at. I was never considering bulkheads as structure, just separation for Oh crap moments, and not asteroid-rare occurrences. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 00:01:30 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Strength of Orgami > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The hull deck joint is anything but two flat surfaces comming together. There is considerable longitudinal curve in the the topsides of any sailing hull, which changes the dynamics drastcially, Ditto the chines, which are two curves comming together, the curved topsides and the curved bottom plate, a drastic difference, structurally, from two flat surfaces comming together. > > Longitudinals, running as they do, along the curve of the hull, are far more effective in resisting buckling than the relatively straight transverse frames of a hard chine, transverse framed hull. > > Transverse frames, being straight, are under a bending load only. Longitudinals are under a compression load. Its far easier to bend a flat bar on edge than to compress an angle longitudinal on end, especially when its welded inside a steel hull. > > The need for gussets along the hull deck joint is eliminated by the pipes for the mast support and deck support, from the inside of the hull cabin side joint to the chine, eliminating any movement there. They, supporting the cabinside, a beam on edge, and curved longitudinaly as well, make such gussets, structurally, totally irrelevant. > > I use cheap filler for my interior, made from mismatched oil based paint , mixed with talc. If there were any movement in my hull, it would have cracked out long ago. None has, in 26 years and tens of thousands of ocean crossing miles, in all weathers, and cruising 11 months a year for most of those 26 years. That is far more definitive than any paper calculations on flexing. > > As one can put a 100 ton hydraulic jack from one chine to the opposite hull deck joint, and crank it to full extension without changing the hull shape in any measureable way, except to stretch and dent the pate at the end of the jack, Transverse bulkheads in my boats are structuraly, totally irrelevant. > > The odds of punching a hole in a boat under 50 feet made of 3/16th plate, in open ocean, are so remote as to make watertight bulkheads a bit like buying asteroid collision insurance. > > For fire , my brother a retired fireman, says that if you seal the boat airtight, there is not enough oxygen to support a fire for very long. He's seen that happen in a departmnment store. A friend with a 35 ft Colvisn Saugeen witch, had his oil stove overflow. It burned a 2 ft circle above the stove, before the fire went out, due to lack of oxygen, despite there being plenty of unburned diesel fuel around. There was not enough to burn a way thru the wooden hatches nor plastic vents or ports. > > Seal a steel boat, and the fire wont last long enought to do much damage. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This was " At what point is the hull shape "locked"? " In my last post, I explained how sheets meeting at near-right angles (70-110 degrees) tend to stiffen each other because they transfer shear flow. I also talked about free edges, and how closing the box makes the box more stiff, and by certain measures stronger. > > > > > > The engineer in me likes to tell the entire story, not just the best parts of it. I have noted in various construction photos like this: > > > > > > http://theboat.smugmug.com/Boats/Kim/14192611_nezSR#1092933216_8sNrt > > > > > > That the deck and hull, and other near-right angle joints come together and are welded. So long as everything is connected, and stays connected, the orgami shell has egg-like stiffness, and maybe strength. The only thing the orgami shape really guarantees is stiffness, and the hull might actually be "brittle" meaning, really good stiffness, but no plasticity to speak of at that stress level, really more of a buckling-like loss of strength until there is some secondary reinforcement after partial collapse. > > > > > > Take an empty aluminium pop can for instance. If one is careful, a 200 lb man can balance on one, but once it starts to go, it quickly crushes down to one third or less of its height. This buckling is a brittle behaviour of the structure, even though the material is very tough. Once crushed down, the crush of the can starts to reinforce the can again, and the collapse stops. If one is balanced on a can and a second person very carefully touches the side of the can with something like the eraser end of a pencil, the can's collapse will occur immediately. Buckling is unstable and leads to brittle-like failures of structures. > > > > > > In a frame-design boat, there is a lot more steel in the frames, at stations down the length of the boat. Buckling is different -- there is a lot of inter-frame buckling, and frames can prevent buckles from involving the entire hull. If one has seen a lot of pictures of old freighters, then one is used to seeing the golf-ball dimpling effect of inter-frame buckling on old rusty freighters that have pounded in waves. > > > > > > http://my.qoop.com/store/Photogenic-Asia---Royalty-Free-Images-3201258271360100/Old-Freighter-by-Shi-Yali-qpps_9751215685575943/ > > > > > > The frames also experience more stiffening as buckling proceeds than a skin-hull would. Placing all of the weight of the steel in the skin certainly creates greater initial stiffness, but gives up the reinforcing properties of frames once buckling starts. > > > > > > One possible failure mode of an orgami is a seam letting go. What is the danger of a seam letting go? The local stiffness of the hull goes down. The two plates are now not reinforcing each other the same way. With a reduction in stiffness, at the same force levels, the deflections increase, locally. The two plates can buckle. Take a 2 liter cardboard milk container with a plastic screw-top. Cut a 2cm long cut in along one of the edges of the carton half way down the side. Compare it to a similar container with no cut. If one compresses the container end-to-end, the cut may open up like eyelids. > > > > > > With increased deflections, the local stresses at the part of the seam that is still holding on, immediately adjacent to the opening, increase. If the stresses are cyclic, like from a sea, the seam can flex back and forth -- like a coat hanger -- a particular section of seam can fatigue in just a few cycles and the seam separation can advance. The more it advances, the less stiff the hull becomes and the more it deflects, and the more force at that part of the seam still just holding on. If an orgami seam starts to go, it can zipper a little more with each wave. > > > > > > Now, steel vs. fibreglass (real mat fibreglass not chop-spray boats): No comparison, the steel is stronger, but the joints might not be stronger. Try breaking a coathanger. Try breaking a 3/16" rod of fibreglass. Also, fibreglass, a much less stiff material to start out with, that is made thicker, so would tend to create less stress concentration. Also, fibreglass mat layups are very resistant to zippering, they hinge and fray, but tend not to zipper. Where would this be better ? Probably nowhere in practicality, this is not an argument for fibreglass boats, just an observation of how a much weaker material is exploited well to get good over all properties for a hull. Therefore much greater hull strength should be possible with steel. > > > > > > After looking at the construction photos of several orgamis, I see a flat deck meeting a flat topsides. Both are stiff in-plane, and both are stiffened by the other out of plane, but the stiffening of the joint in flex comes from 3 dimensional effects. A more direct stiffening might be used, using gusset plates, or internal webs. Here is a web page that talks about gusset plates on a beam structure. > > > > > > http://www.strand7.com/html/Webnotes/Gusset.htm > > > > > > These gussets , or small mini-frames if you will, might be welding into inside corners on the inside of the hull. They would contribute slightly to stiffness of the boat, however, they contribute significantly to "toughness". Once a boat buckles, these frames have to stretch a lot, and keep stretching the more it buckles. Also, if a seam starts to let go, the opening might easily stop at a gusset web. > > > > > > Each gusset might weigh a pound or two, and welding in one every foot on all interior corners, would add about 100-200 pounds to the weight of a 26' boat. Maybe every 2 feet would work almost as well. Don't know, have not run the numbers. > > > > > > An orgami without gussets, looking at a seam opening problem should look to the construction methods -- get a chain-winch across the gap to hold it closed (reduce deflections which would reduce the tendency for a seam to run), and rejoin the edges ASAP to re-establish shear flow. > > > > > > I am not suggesting an orgami might spontaneously peel like a banana, however there is no reason not to invest a small amount of weight, and time, and probably no new material (gussets might come from scraps) putting direct stiffness into one aspect of the orgami hull -- seam hinging -- and at the same time, provide stop-points for seam failures. Gussets would add to the forces needed to continue buckling that initially stiff steel shell. Providing more capacity to continue carrying loads after the hull begins to yield is a type of toughness. Gussets would seem to confer more of the steel's natural strength and toughness to the overall hull shape at very small cost. > > > > > > I also like the idea of bulkheads, 2 or more of them, to divide the volume up to make flooding, fire, etc a local problem to one section. Bulkheads need not be really thick steel since one might see and paint both sides regularly. But bulkheads are an entirely different measure to gussets. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That makes sense. Thin sheet structures gain stiffness by curvature, yes, but also connectedness. The connectedness allows shear loads to be transferred from one panel to the next. Try it with a standard 8-flap cardboard box (4 flaps on the bottom, 4 on the top). Close the bottom well, with tape. Fold the top shut but do not tape it. Deform the box, and the two top flaps will slide laterally relative to one another. This is because no shear force can be transferred from one to the other, so they move. Place some tape over the boundary between the flaps on the top, and suddenly the shape of the box is locked. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the description of what you say though, the doghouse and cockpit are not in. So you still have free edges of deck sheets. To save yourself some tiny deformation of the hull, which might manifest itself as a little up and down, out of plane deflection in the deck edge where it is currently attached to nothing, leave the cross brace in for a moment. Once something is welded to the inner edge of the deck, something that is stiff in the up and down direction, like the cabin sides and cockpit sides, there is less possibility of this free-edge deflection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason is, tack-welding sheets at sharp angles (like 70-110 degrees) it is sort of like a lever. Every time one tacks in another sheet, essentially at right angles to the previous one, the first sheet is stiffened greatly by the in-plane stiffness of the second sheet. The small out-of-plane deflections of the second sheet are the only degree of freedom left. The first sheet has very little mechanical advantage over this degree of freedom (like a really short lever) but can cause largish deflections with tremendous forces. The lever works both ways though, the largish out of plane deflections of the second sheet's free edge have a tremendous mechanical advantage over the rest of the hull. Forcing that free edge straight takes a relatively small force through a largish distance, and applies huge forces on the hull to deflect it very slightly, to put its shape back to the deck-flat shape when the brace was in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, when Brent was pulling inside the hull, with the decks on, he was working at the hard end of the lever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Flattening the decks by hand, while tacking in the cockpit sides and cabin sides will not be as hard as deforming the hull, but might be more force than one can apply with one hand while using the welder in the other. Leaving that brace in until one has turned the second angle, on the deck, to the cockpit sides and cabin sides, is like putting a lever on lever. Not only is the hull more rigidly held, the deck free edge is no longer free and can't buckle out of plane. Lastly, forcing the now free edge of the cockpit sides and cabin sides right (assuming the brace is removed) may not be necessary, and will be far easier because you are taking advantage of the mechanical advantage of the lever *squared*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is likely too fine of a distinction for most. One more come-along will solve a lot of problems, but I like things to line up like they are supposed to, without having doubts of where that deflection is coming from. I also feel this leads to a design with the minimum of built-in stress which just makes it stronger relative to outside forces. So I would leave the brace in for now. For practicality reasons, the entire dog house or cockpit might be constructed as a unit, not on the boat, say in a garage, and then lifted into place as a unit. I would leave the brace in until it is tacked down, just to keep the deck sheets as flat as the day you tacked them down, and avoid uncertainty later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:42:39 +0000 > > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once all the decks are on ,it is locked. We once tried to change it after all the decks were on, and ended up breaking the handle off a 3 ton come along, without moving it a sixteenth of an inch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > > > > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near the centerline. > > > > > > > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > > > > > > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > > > > > > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap back in! > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > > > Kim. > > > > > > > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24678|24668|2010-12-06 23:38:38|h|Re: External Mast Roller Furling|Yeah I thought about that before too, I figured it would be much easier to make a furling boom. The sail will set better reefed, if there's a problem you can still just reef like normal or you'd be able to fix it without having to go aloft. I imagine you could make one very much like Brent's jib furler with the split pipe and the plastic bushings just bigger, with the back end with a topping lift free to swivel as well as the goose neck end. The outhaul would have to spin around with the sail though. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "sunbear" wrote: > > I am just wondering here--saw two boats recently with external mast roller furling. The roller furling was mounted behind the main mast without any fairing such as the Italian Bamar units--does anyone have any experience as to their effectiveness??--I was wondering because there seems to be quite a gap between mast and furling sail. As age proceeds I am pondering ways to ease sail handling. I could make one of these myself. Thanks for any input. MarkH > | 24679|24668|2010-12-06 23:56:14|Paul Wilson|Re: External Mast Roller Furling|Slab/Jiffy reefing is so simple, cheap, and reliable.....I can reef my main in about 2 or 3 minutes so see no reason for roller furling on a mainsail. As Brent said, any kind of roller separate from the spar (mast or boom) adds a tremendous amount of compression to the spar due to the tension required to keep the roller straight. It works well on a jib because the wire or roller extrusion is normally kept under tension anyway. Cheers, Paul On 12/7/2010 5:38 PM, h wrote: > > Yeah I thought about that before too, I figured it would be much > easier to make a furling boom. The sail will set better reefed, if > there's a problem you can still just reef like normal or you'd be able > to fix it without having to go aloft. I imagine you could make one > very much like Brent's jib furler with the split pipe and the plastic > bushings just bigger, with the back end with a topping lift free to > swivel as well as the goose neck end. The outhaul would have to spin > around with the sail though. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "sunbear" wrote: > > > > I am just wondering here--saw two boats recently with external mast > roller furling. The roller furling was mounted behind the main mast > without any fairing such as the Italian Bamar units--does anyone have > any experience as to their effectiveness??--I was wondering because > there seems to be quite a gap between mast and furling sail. As age > proceeds I am pondering ways to ease sail handling. I could make one > of these myself. Thanks for any input. MarkH > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3300 - Release Date: 12/06/10 20:34:00 > | 24680|24523|2010-12-07 08:16:12|jhess314|Cable Anchor Rode|I've been meaning to ask about a cable anchor rode. What are its strengths and weaknesses? How do you size the cable compared to chain? What grades or lays are best? Does having the whole weight of the cable on-deck, vs the chain down below, seriously raise the CoG? I assume that cable is lighter than chain. How do you attach a nylon snubber to cable? How do you "tie-off" a cable to a cleat, or where ever, so as to take the anchoring strain off the winch? Will cable kink? I suppose our scrounger-in-chief is able to find great cable deals at his local scrap yard, but for the rest of us, where is the best place to source galvanized cable? Are marine grade cable winches available for our size boats, or do you have to fabricate a winch? Best, John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > My anchor winch eliminates the chain locker. | 24681|24668|2010-12-07 10:02:16|scott|Re: External Mast Roller Furling|I really like the in mast systems I have used but I have to agree that I consider them to be unsafe in extreme conditions. I have seen them jam in under 30 knot winds due to one reason or another. In a storm it would be a nightmare. They work well, but are very sensitive to how you roll them up or out, as well as very sensitive to the age of the sail. Older sails that have developed some extra camber via stretching start to become major problems as they want to jam going in and out of the mast. For onshore I think that if you do furling it should be in the boom so that you can reach it in case of a problem. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > For safety, robustness, ease of repair, mainsail furling should be down-furling / reefing. Toward the boom, not toward the mast. Worst case, no matter how fancy or simple the mechanism, dropping the sail unfurled always remains an option with down-furling/reefing systems. Working on a boom with a flogging sail is dangerous enough. With to the mast, or into the mast systems, what can you do if the mechanism stops ? Let the sail flog ? Risk being over-sailed while climbing the mast to fix it/ clear a jam ? I do not want anything except the most simple and robust pulley up a mast. If a boom system does not work, once the sail is down one can later slab reef or bundle the sail to the boom like a leg of lamb with a line around the boom. Also, I wonder about the aerodynamic effects of a toward the mast furling system too if it is aft of the mast. Then there is the cost. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38 | 24682|24682|2010-12-07 17:14:42|wild_explorer|Bare hull's additions - weight and moment calculations|I made simple spreadsheet for additional weights to bare hull calculation. Might be very useful if you build interior or adding equipment. I assume that bare hull is balanced and you want to keep it that way, but need to add furniture, engine, appliances, batteries, etc. Spreadsheet has couple of items (balanced) already and you can play with it or add you own. Calculations is non-dimensional. If you enter distance in ft and weight in pounds you will get moment ft-lbs. Same with tonnes and meters t-m. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/Origami_hulls_and_stability/Calculations/ I did not test spreadsheet for MS-Office, but it should work. P.S. Somebody said it is easy to balance a boat just moving a pack of beer from bow to stern (or vs). I do not think so ;)| 24683|24571|2010-12-07 18:41:13|gschnell@shaw.ca|Shim stock model|I finally got my micrometer and the brass shimstock in the same location...the shim is 0.010". Quite thin but remarkably resilient for that thickness. Any indusrial supply should carry it in variety of thicknesses. Hope that helps. Gord Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network. Envoy� sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le r�seau de Bell. -----Original Message----- From: boatwayupnorth Sender: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 10:31:38 To: Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Alu hull in Origami John, I tried to get in touch with Gerd earlier this year without luck. His webpage hasn't been updated for quite some time, don't know what happened. He wants to keep a record about how many people ordered the plans for his Yago 31, but he distributes them for free. If you haven't heard from him in a while I guess it will be ok if I send you the plans. Let me know if you are interested. Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > Aaron, > > Thanks for directing me to Gerd and his Yago project. From his project manual I'm getting an idea of his way to design an origami hull. I'm also getting good ideas from posts by Greg Elliott of origamimagic.com. It appears that he's developed or adapted software to design an origami hull from any other hull. > > Gerd's Yago hulls have two chines with a flat (or nearly so) bottom. That's getting closer to what I am looking for. I've requested the blueprints for his Yago 31. Maybe that hull will be a good departure point for what I want. > > Thanks again, > John > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > > > John > > > > Look up Gerd in the search menu he had a neet way of explaining how to develope > > an Origami��design. > > > > Aaron�� > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24684|24668|2010-12-07 22:13:40|brentswain38|Re: External Mast Roller Furling|There was a boat with in the mast main furling in Heriot Bay this past summer. When the westerly blew for days on end , you could hear it howl from a quarter mile away. Eventually the wind dropped enough to let them turn the boat around. It went quiet, until the wind came up from the other direction, then the howling resumed. They tried a rope up the slot ,etc, and nothing would quiet it down. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > For safety, robustness, ease of repair, mainsail furling should be down-furling / reefing. Toward the boom, not toward the mast. Worst case, no matter how fancy or simple the mechanism, dropping the sail unfurled always remains an option with down-furling/reefing systems. Working on a boom with a flogging sail is dangerous enough. With to the mast, or into the mast systems, what can you do if the mechanism stops ? Let the sail flog ? Risk being over-sailed while climbing the mast to fix it/ clear a jam ? I do not want anything except the most simple and robust pulley up a mast. If a boom system does not work, once the sail is down one can later slab reef or bundle the sail to the boom like a leg of lamb with a line around the boom. Also, I wonder about the aerodynamic effects of a toward the mast furling system too if it is aft of the mast. Then there is the cost. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 21:06:17 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: External Mast Roller Furling > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Friends on Lasquetti did that on a 40 foter with one of my furlers. Works well, but whips around in a head wind when furled . They have to wrap a halyard around it. > > Being so close to the mast, it puts a huge compresion load on the mast , so you want a stiff mast section. I can put a slab reef in my main in under a minute , so I don't see the point in a main furler. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "sunbear" wrote: > > > > > > I am just wondering here--saw two boats recently with external mast roller furling. The roller furling was mounted behind the main mast without any fairing such as the Italian Bamar units--does anyone have any experience as to their effectiveness??--I was wondering because there seems to be quite a gap between mast and furling sail. As age proceeds I am pondering ways to ease sail handling. I could make one of these myself. Thanks for any input. MarkH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24685|24668|2010-12-07 22:17:15|brentswain38|Re: BS 36 versus Beneteau 38|Another 36 "Shinola", while cruising in company of a Beneteau 36 in Mexico , despite being heavily loaded, always left at the same time as the Beneteau and arivved well ahead of the Benny. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Howdy, > > I just got back from helping deliver a Beneteau 381 across the Tasman > from Wellington, NZ to Sydney, Australia. It is about 1200 miles and > took us just under 12 days. > > I had a good trip despite some adverse weather and current. We had > lots of wind (45 plus knots) on the nose with 4 meter swells the first > day or two and then calms followed by a 20 to 25 knot beam reach for > the final week. We spent many days under double reefed main and had a > strong counter current of up to 2 knots at times so the strong wind at > the end of the trip was a blessing. I never expected such a strong > easterly current which we encountered so far out, close to 500 miles > from Aus. With four people on board and a functioning autopilot, I > felt spoiled. I have never slept so much offshore. It will make me > seriously think of having crew the next time I sail offshore. > > Anyway, I can safely say my Origami 36 would have sailed much faster and > done the trip at least a day or two quicker despite being heavier and > shorter. It would also have been much drier below without all the leaky > portholes and shallow sump slopping dirty bilge water everywhere. > Healed over, it was impossible to keep the cabin floors dry on the > Beneteau. We ran out of fresh water on the final day and were worried > about running out of fuel motoring through the high pressure zone while > becalmed. This would never happen on such a short trip on a real > offshore cruising boat with its much larger water and fuel tanks like I > have on my 36..... > > The trip confirmed (again) what a fantastic boat the Origami (BS 36) > is.....I have never seen another 36 footer that can carry what I can and > yet rack up the miles on such a consistent basis. > > Cheers, Paul > | 24686|24523|2010-12-07 22:19:55|brentswain38|Re: Strength of Orgami|Did you have the cover on the anchor well and the 6 inch diameter innertube seal hose clamped on? I have, and have never had a problem with my vent, in the last 26 years. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "h" wrote: > > Yeah that anchor well vent does have that tendency to invite gallons per waves onto the bed when you forget to seal it, beating into waves. I figure I took on about a 100 gallons or so before I peeked inside the hatch and discovered the floating floorboards. When I saw water leaking in from under the bed I wondered how I managed to put a hole in the hull without noticing, much cursing, but after seeing the seaweed and dampness of the bed it all became clear, I keep that vent dogged down nowadays. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > The doubling of plates in the bilge was not clear from the photos. Doubling plates does a lot more than double strength for a shell / plate structure, it increases it by a factor of 8. If the plates added are 50% thicker than the original hull (for 2.5x thicker in total), that is 15.6 times stronger. It is not surprising one can bounce over reefs and the other stories you relate. > > > > The pipes, I did not recall seeing those in other's boat photos, and they looked temporary in Kim's. My mistake in assuming they were temporary. Certainly, putting some beams, pipes, etc through the free volume of the hull over longer dimensions than a gusset have the potential to be far more effective than gussets. Also, more material ( a 4-5' pipe verses a 4" gusset) is more material to absorb energy, more robust. > > > > As for sealing the boat and the fire goes out, absolutely right for a fire near the middle. FYI, leave it shut for 5+ minutes after you are sure the fire is out, so the heat disperses otherwise the fire might re-ignite from a hot surface. For a fire near a hatch or vent, leave it shut longer, or cover the hatch/vent with plastic or do your best to toss water through the cracks to rule out the possibility of a smoldering fire from a little draft. > > > > Bulkheads -- OK structurally irrelevant. Stepping my mast can be done by one person. Problem is, it relies heavily on that one person and things going right. Any number of small unplanned-for things can happen. So I have a spar and pulley system I use. I call it my Oh Crap insurance. Bulkheads seem like cheap Oh Crap insurance against so many things, even small things ... like ... While one is away on shore for a week, and there is a little leak in through-hull hose or something. Yep, 3 feet of water in my main cabin and galley is not likely, but, my bunk in the forward cabin is guaranteed to be dry, as is my engine -- a good night's sleep and one less thing to say Oh Crap about. Spill some diesel in the aft section because, I don't know, last time I was crawling around in there I nudged the vent line for the tank, and it pops off when it is overfilled at a commercial pump on some island. Well at least the diesel does not soak into the wood in the middle section, or the fumes give me a wicked headache in the morning. Watermaker hose comes off, or springs a leak jetting at 2000psi -- close the bulkhead hatch find the fuse and pull it without worrying about catching it in the ear. Battery comes lose and spills, go ahead and throw buckets of seawater in that section to dillute the spilled electrolyte -- no worry of it soaking everything else. Front hatch or vent or chain locker starts ingesting water at a rate of liters per wave and I do not notice for a an hour.... oh well, I still have somewhere dry to sleep for a couple days until things lighten up and I can hang stuff to dry. And fires... when they are smothered by closing hatches, and go out that way, they produce lots of toxic compounds... it would be nice if at least some of the pillows and bedding are not permeated with the stench. Stuff happens. In particular for me, being more certain that what sleep I can afford is good makes the rest of it just so much easier to handle without cursing. I find good sleep, makes my decisions better too. Being certain that my cruising partner has a good nights sleep, makes it so much easier to deal with things while I am not getting cursed at. I was never considering bulkheads as structure, just separation for Oh crap moments, and not asteroid-rare occurrences. > > > > Matt > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 00:01:30 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Strength of Orgami > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The hull deck joint is anything but two flat surfaces comming together. There is considerable longitudinal curve in the the topsides of any sailing hull, which changes the dynamics drastcially, Ditto the chines, which are two curves comming together, the curved topsides and the curved bottom plate, a drastic difference, structurally, from two flat surfaces comming together. > > > > Longitudinals, running as they do, along the curve of the hull, are far more effective in resisting buckling than the relatively straight transverse frames of a hard chine, transverse framed hull. > > > > Transverse frames, being straight, are under a bending load only. Longitudinals are under a compression load. Its far easier to bend a flat bar on edge than to compress an angle longitudinal on end, especially when its welded inside a steel hull. > > > > The need for gussets along the hull deck joint is eliminated by the pipes for the mast support and deck support, from the inside of the hull cabin side joint to the chine, eliminating any movement there. They, supporting the cabinside, a beam on edge, and curved longitudinaly as well, make such gussets, structurally, totally irrelevant. > > > > I use cheap filler for my interior, made from mismatched oil based paint , mixed with talc. If there were any movement in my hull, it would have cracked out long ago. None has, in 26 years and tens of thousands of ocean crossing miles, in all weathers, and cruising 11 months a year for most of those 26 years. That is far more definitive than any paper calculations on flexing. > > > > As one can put a 100 ton hydraulic jack from one chine to the opposite hull deck joint, and crank it to full extension without changing the hull shape in any measureable way, except to stretch and dent the pate at the end of the jack, Transverse bulkheads in my boats are structuraly, totally irrelevant. > > > > The odds of punching a hole in a boat under 50 feet made of 3/16th plate, in open ocean, are so remote as to make watertight bulkheads a bit like buying asteroid collision insurance. > > > > For fire , my brother a retired fireman, says that if you seal the boat airtight, there is not enough oxygen to support a fire for very long. He's seen that happen in a departmnment store. A friend with a 35 ft Colvisn Saugeen witch, had his oil stove overflow. It burned a 2 ft circle above the stove, before the fire went out, due to lack of oxygen, despite there being plenty of unburned diesel fuel around. There was not enough to burn a way thru the wooden hatches nor plastic vents or ports. > > > > Seal a steel boat, and the fire wont last long enought to do much damage. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was " At what point is the hull shape "locked"? " In my last post, I explained how sheets meeting at near-right angles (70-110 degrees) tend to stiffen each other because they transfer shear flow. I also talked about free edges, and how closing the box makes the box more stiff, and by certain measures stronger. > > > > > > > > > > The engineer in me likes to tell the entire story, not just the best parts of it. I have noted in various construction photos like this: > > > > > > > > > > http://theboat.smugmug.com/Boats/Kim/14192611_nezSR#1092933216_8sNrt > > > > > > > > > > That the deck and hull, and other near-right angle joints come together and are welded. So long as everything is connected, and stays connected, the orgami shell has egg-like stiffness, and maybe strength. The only thing the orgami shape really guarantees is stiffness, and the hull might actually be "brittle" meaning, really good stiffness, but no plasticity to speak of at that stress level, really more of a buckling-like loss of strength until there is some secondary reinforcement after partial collapse. > > > > > > > > > > Take an empty aluminium pop can for instance. If one is careful, a 200 lb man can balance on one, but once it starts to go, it quickly crushes down to one third or less of its height. This buckling is a brittle behaviour of the structure, even though the material is very tough. Once crushed down, the crush of the can starts to reinforce the can again, and the collapse stops. If one is balanced on a can and a second person very carefully touches the side of the can with something like the eraser end of a pencil, the can's collapse will occur immediately. Buckling is unstable and leads to brittle-like failures of structures. > > > > > > > > > > In a frame-design boat, there is a lot more steel in the frames, at stations down the length of the boat. Buckling is different -- there is a lot of inter-frame buckling, and frames can prevent buckles from involving the entire hull. If one has seen a lot of pictures of old freighters, then one is used to seeing the golf-ball dimpling effect of inter-frame buckling on old rusty freighters that have pounded in waves. > > > > > > > > > > http://my.qoop.com/store/Photogenic-Asia---Royalty-Free-Images-3201258271360100/Old-Freighter-by-Shi-Yali-qpps_9751215685575943/ > > > > > > > > > > The frames also experience more stiffening as buckling proceeds than a skin-hull would. Placing all of the weight of the steel in the skin certainly creates greater initial stiffness, but gives up the reinforcing properties of frames once buckling starts. > > > > > > > > > > One possible failure mode of an orgami is a seam letting go. What is the danger of a seam letting go? The local stiffness of the hull goes down. The two plates are now not reinforcing each other the same way. With a reduction in stiffness, at the same force levels, the deflections increase, locally. The two plates can buckle. Take a 2 liter cardboard milk container with a plastic screw-top. Cut a 2cm long cut in along one of the edges of the carton half way down the side. Compare it to a similar container with no cut. If one compresses the container end-to-end, the cut may open up like eyelids. > > > > > > > > > > With increased deflections, the local stresses at the part of the seam that is still holding on, immediately adjacent to the opening, increase. If the stresses are cyclic, like from a sea, the seam can flex back and forth -- like a coat hanger -- a particular section of seam can fatigue in just a few cycles and the seam separation can advance. The more it advances, the less stiff the hull becomes and the more it deflects, and the more force at that part of the seam still just holding on. If an orgami seam starts to go, it can zipper a little more with each wave. > > > > > > > > > > Now, steel vs. fibreglass (real mat fibreglass not chop-spray boats): No comparison, the steel is stronger, but the joints might not be stronger. Try breaking a coathanger. Try breaking a 3/16" rod of fibreglass. Also, fibreglass, a much less stiff material to start out with, that is made thicker, so would tend to create less stress concentration. Also, fibreglass mat layups are very resistant to zippering, they hinge and fray, but tend not to zipper. Where would this be better ? Probably nowhere in practicality, this is not an argument for fibreglass boats, just an observation of how a much weaker material is exploited well to get good over all properties for a hull. Therefore much greater hull strength should be possible with steel. > > > > > > > > > > After looking at the construction photos of several orgamis, I see a flat deck meeting a flat topsides. Both are stiff in-plane, and both are stiffened by the other out of plane, but the stiffening of the joint in flex comes from 3 dimensional effects. A more direct stiffening might be used, using gusset plates, or internal webs. Here is a web page that talks about gusset plates on a beam structure. > > > > > > > > > > http://www.strand7.com/html/Webnotes/Gusset.htm > > > > > > > > > > These gussets , or small mini-frames if you will, might be welding into inside corners on the inside of the hull. They would contribute slightly to stiffness of the boat, however, they contribute significantly to "toughness". Once a boat buckles, these frames have to stretch a lot, and keep stretching the more it buckles. Also, if a seam starts to let go, the opening might easily stop at a gusset web. > > > > > > > > > > Each gusset might weigh a pound or two, and welding in one every foot on all interior corners, would add about 100-200 pounds to the weight of a 26' boat. Maybe every 2 feet would work almost as well. Don't know, have not run the numbers. > > > > > > > > > > An orgami without gussets, looking at a seam opening problem should look to the construction methods -- get a chain-winch across the gap to hold it closed (reduce deflections which would reduce the tendency for a seam to run), and rejoin the edges ASAP to re-establish shear flow. > > > > > > > > > > I am not suggesting an orgami might spontaneously peel like a banana, however there is no reason not to invest a small amount of weight, and time, and probably no new material (gussets might come from scraps) putting direct stiffness into one aspect of the orgami hull -- seam hinging -- and at the same time, provide stop-points for seam failures. Gussets would add to the forces needed to continue buckling that initially stiff steel shell. Providing more capacity to continue carrying loads after the hull begins to yield is a type of toughness. Gussets would seem to confer more of the steel's natural strength and toughness to the overall hull shape at very small cost. > > > > > > > > > > I also like the idea of bulkheads, 2 or more of them, to divide the volume up to make flooding, fire, etc a local problem to one section. Bulkheads need not be really thick steel since one might see and paint both sides regularly. But bulkheads are an entirely different measure to gussets. > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That makes sense. Thin sheet structures gain stiffness by curvature, yes, but also connectedness. The connectedness allows shear loads to be transferred from one panel to the next. Try it with a standard 8-flap cardboard box (4 flaps on the bottom, 4 on the top). Close the bottom well, with tape. Fold the top shut but do not tape it. Deform the box, and the two top flaps will slide laterally relative to one another. This is because no shear force can be transferred from one to the other, so they move. Place some tape over the boundary between the flaps on the top, and suddenly the shape of the box is locked. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the description of what you say though, the doghouse and cockpit are not in. So you still have free edges of deck sheets. To save yourself some tiny deformation of the hull, which might manifest itself as a little up and down, out of plane deflection in the deck edge where it is currently attached to nothing, leave the cross brace in for a moment. Once something is welded to the inner edge of the deck, something that is stiff in the up and down direction, like the cabin sides and cockpit sides, there is less possibility of this free-edge deflection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason is, tack-welding sheets at sharp angles (like 70-110 degrees) it is sort of like a lever. Every time one tacks in another sheet, essentially at right angles to the previous one, the first sheet is stiffened greatly by the in-plane stiffness of the second sheet. The small out-of-plane deflections of the second sheet are the only degree of freedom left. The first sheet has very little mechanical advantage over this degree of freedom (like a really short lever) but can cause largish deflections with tremendous forces. The lever works both ways though, the largish out of plane deflections of the second sheet's free edge have a tremendous mechanical advantage over the rest of the hull. Forcing that free edge straight takes a relatively small force through a largish distance, and applies huge forces on the hull to deflect it very slightly, to put its shape back to the deck-flat shape when the brace was in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, when Brent was pulling inside the hull, with the decks on, he was working at the hard end of the lever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Flattening the decks by hand, while tacking in the cockpit sides and cabin sides will not be as hard as deforming the hull, but might be more force than one can apply with one hand while using the welder in the other. Leaving that brace in until one has turned the second angle, on the deck, to the cockpit sides and cabin sides, is like putting a lever on lever. Not only is the hull more rigidly held, the deck free edge is no longer free and can't buckle out of plane. Lastly, forcing the now free edge of the cockpit sides and cabin sides right (assuming the brace is removed) may not be necessary, and will be far easier because you are taking advantage of the mechanical advantage of the lever *squared*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is likely too fine of a distinction for most. One more come-along will solve a lot of problems, but I like things to line up like they are supposed to, without having doubts of where that deflection is coming from. I also feel this leads to a design with the minimum of built-in stress which just makes it stronger relative to outside forces. So I would leave the brace in for now. For practicality reasons, the entire dog house or cockpit might be constructed as a unit, not on the boat, say in a garage, and then lifted into place as a unit. I would leave the brace in until it is tacked down, just to keep the deck sheets as flat as the day you tacked them down, and avoid uncertainty later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:42:39 +0000 > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: At what point is the hull shape "locked"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once all the decks are on ,it is locked. We once tried to change it after all the decks were on, and ended up breaking the handle off a 3 ton come along, without moving it a sixteenth of an inch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Before starting to put the decks on my Swain 26, I leveled the hull, pulled the beam in to the correct width, and removed any "twist" in the hull by using a winch between a top corner of the transom and a low point near the centerline. > > > > > > > > > > > > I've just finished tacking all the decks in place from the bow to the transom. :-) (see http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht) Because I've got all the decks in, would the hull shape now be locked and immovable? > > > > > > > > > > > > Or is the hull shape not considered locked until I get the cockpit and/or cabinsides and/or cabin tops fitted? > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm keen to remove the diagonal winch and get it out of the way; but naturally I don't want to undo it prematurely and let any hull twist snap back in! > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance for any advice! > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Kim. > > > > > > > > > > > > PS: I've never had a boat with such wonderfully wide side decks - they are awesome! 18" wide on the 26 footer. And they look terrific - sort of a "traditional" look! Combined with the deep 4" bulwark, I think it's going to be a pretty safe boat to move about on at sea (at least compared to the ridiculously narrow side decks on most small production boats). > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 24687|24523|2010-12-07 22:30:11|brentswain38|Re: Cable Anchor Rode|Cable of adequate size is 1/7th the weight of chain per foot. Cable has a far higher safe working load for a given diameter compared to chain. 7X19 is best. It can kink , especuiialy stainless, which can also get meathooks. I have used 1/4 inch stainles in the tropics , but I'll probably go galv next time. Cable on deck hasn't been a problem weight wise on my 31. I put an eye in my cable every 50 feet, where I can attach a snubber and float , with a chain hook, if I need to.I use this snubber to tie off with. My book tells you how to build a cable winch suitable for wire rope. Fishboats have used comercialy made ones on the BC coast for decades, in fact they use nothing but. Many used hydraulic ones are available. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > I've been meaning to ask about a cable anchor rode. > > What are its strengths and weaknesses? > How do you size the cable compared to chain? > What grades or lays are best? > Does having the whole weight of the cable on-deck, vs the chain down below, seriously raise the CoG? I assume that cable is lighter than chain. > How do you attach a nylon snubber to cable? > How do you "tie-off" a cable to a cleat, or where ever, so as to take the anchoring strain off the winch? > Will cable kink? > I suppose our scrounger-in-chief is able to find great cable deals at his local scrap yard, but for the rest of us, where is the best place to source galvanized cable? > Are marine grade cable winches available for our size boats, or do you have to fabricate a winch? > > Best, > John > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > My anchor winch eliminates the chain locker. > | 24688|24523|2010-12-07 23:06:03|brentswain38|Re: Cable Anchor Rode|Chain takes far longer to corrode dangerously, but cable is far cheaper to replace often. Cable or chain on a reel winch doesn't care about matching it perfectly to a gypsy. With a reel winch , there is no hole in the deck, and no dead crabs rotting in a below decks chain locker --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Cable of adequate size is 1/7th the weight of chain per foot. > Cable has a far higher safe working load for a given diameter compared to chain. 7X19 is best. It can kink , especuiialy stainless, which can also get meathooks. I have used 1/4 inch stainles in the tropics , but I'll probably go galv next time. > Cable on deck hasn't been a problem weight wise on my 31. > I put an eye in my cable every 50 feet, where I can attach a snubber and float , with a chain hook, if I need to.I use this snubber to tie off with. > My book tells you how to build a cable winch suitable for wire rope. Fishboats have used comercialy made ones on the BC coast for decades, in fact they use nothing but. Many used hydraulic ones are available. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > I've been meaning to ask about a cable anchor rode. > > > > What are its strengths and weaknesses? > > How do you size the cable compared to chain? > > What grades or lays are best? > > Does having the whole weight of the cable on-deck, vs the chain down below, seriously raise the CoG? I assume that cable is lighter than chain. > > How do you attach a nylon snubber to cable? > > How do you "tie-off" a cable to a cleat, or where ever, so as to take the anchoring strain off the winch? > > Will cable kink? > > I suppose our scrounger-in-chief is able to find great cable deals at his local scrap yard, but for the rest of us, where is the best place to source galvanized cable? > > Are marine grade cable winches available for our size boats, or do you have to fabricate a winch? > > > > Best, > > John > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > My anchor winch eliminates the chain locker. > > > | 24689|24523|2010-12-07 23:29:54|Paul Wilson|Re: Cable Anchor Rode|I have a single length of cable and use a rolling hitch (Prusik knot) to tie a snubber onto the cable. I use a loop of old line and then attach the snubber to the tied loop. It doesn't slip if you use about 6 turns, even when the cable has been greased. When tied to a spare halyard, a Prusik knot is also handy when climbing the mast as a quick and easy jamming knot for safety or when used as an ascender. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prusik_knot Cheers, Paul On 12/8/2010 4:30 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > Cable of adequate size is 1/7th the weight of chain per foot. > Cable has a far higher safe working load for a given diameter compared > to chain. 7X19 is best. It can kink , especuiialy stainless, which can > also get meathooks. I have used 1/4 inch stainles in the tropics , but > I'll probably go galv next time. > Cable on deck hasn't been a problem weight wise on my 31. > I put an eye in my cable every 50 feet, where I can attach a snubber > and float , with a chain hook, if I need to.I use this snubber to tie > off with. > My book tells you how to build a cable winch suitable for wire rope. > Fishboats have used comercialy made ones on the BC coast for decades, > in fact they use nothing but. Many used hydraulic ones are available. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "jhess314" wrote: > > > > I've been meaning to ask about a cable anchor rode. > > > > What are its strengths and weaknesses? > > How do you size the cable compared to chain? > > What grades or lays are best? > > Does having the whole weight of the cable on-deck, vs the chain down > below, seriously raise the CoG? I assume that cable is lighter than > chain. > > How do you attach a nylon snubber to cable? > > How do you "tie-off" a cable to a cleat, or where ever, so as to > take the anchoring strain off the winch? > > Will cable kink? > > I suppose our scrounger-in-chief is able to find great cable deals > at his local scrap yard, but for the rest of us, where is the best > place to source galvanized cable? > > Are marine grade cable winches available for our size boats, or do > you have to fabricate a winch? > > > > Best, > > John > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "brentswain38" > wrote: > > > > > > My anchor winch eliminates the chain locker. > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3303 - Release Date: 12/08/10 08:34:00 > | 24690|24668|2010-12-07 23:42:25|Paul Wilson|Re: BS 36 versus Beneteau 38|Yup, as a rule of thumb, I usually keep up with most cruising 42 footers and many 45 footers, particularly if we are going to windward. If a boat is faster, it is usually lightly loaded with much lower displacement and much smaller tanks with fewer stores. I have always been particularly pleased with the windward performance. It gets wet but I can keep driving into waves that stop other boats. A heavy 34 footer once left a port 2 days ahead of me beating into the trades and I passed them in 12 hours...... Paul On 12/8/2010 4:17 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > Another 36 "Shinola", while cruising in company of a Beneteau 36 in > Mexico , despite being heavily loaded, always left at the same time as > the Beneteau and arivved well ahead of the Benny. > > | 24691|24571|2010-12-08 05:26:32|boatwayupnorth|Re: Shim stock model|Gord, did your roof survive the snow? I was wondering if you could take a quick picture next time you check your boat? I would really like to see the lifting arrangement you installed in the pilot house. Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, gschnell@... wrote: > > I finally got my micrometer and the brass shimstock in the same location...the shim is 0.010". Quite thin but remarkably resilient for that thickness. Any indusrial supply should carry it in variety of thicknesses. Hope that helps. Gord > Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network. > Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau de Bell. > > -----Original Message----- > From: boatwayupnorth > Sender: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 10:31:38 > To: > Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Alu hull in Origami > > > > > > > John, I tried to get in touch with Gerd earlier this year without luck. His webpage hasn't been updated for quite some time, don't know what happened. He wants to keep a record about how many people ordered the plans for his Yago 31, but he distributes them for free. > If you haven't heard from him in a while I guess it will be ok if I send you the plans. Let me know if you are interested. > Walter > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > Aaron, > > > > Thanks for directing me to Gerd and his Yago project. From his project manual I'm getting an idea of his way to design an origami hull. I'm also getting good ideas from posts by Greg Elliott of origamimagic.com. It appears that he's developed or adapted software to design an origami hull from any other hull. > > > > Gerd's Yago hulls have two chines with a flat (or nearly so) bottom. That's getting closer to what I am looking for. I've requested the blueprints for his Yago 31. Maybe that hull will be a good departure point for what I want. > > > > Thanks again, > > John > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > > > > > John > > > > > > Look up Gerd in the search menu he had a neet way of explaining how to develope > > > an Origami design. > > > > > > Aaron  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24692|24668|2010-12-08 07:11:28|scott|Re: External Mast Roller Furling|I've never heard one do that but can see the potential scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > There was a boat with in the mast main furling in Heriot Bay this past summer. When the westerly blew for days on end , you could hear it howl from a quarter mile away. Eventually the wind dropped enough to let them turn the boat around. It went quiet, until the wind came up from the other direction, then the howling resumed. They tried a rope up the slot ,etc, and nothing would quiet it down. | 24693|24571|2010-12-08 08:12:53|jhess314|Re: Shim stock model|Gord, Thanks for the info on the shim thickness. I'm looking forward to seeing how my digital models actually come together. Best, John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, gschnell@... wrote: > > I finally got my micrometer and the brass shimstock in the same location...the shim is 0.010". Quite thin but remarkably resilient for that thickness. Any indusrial supply should carry it in variety of thicknesses. Hope that helps. Gord | 24694|24668|2010-12-08 08:42:19|jhess314|Re: BS 36 versus Beneteau 38|Brent, What are the characteristics of your designs which contribute to their speed and seaworthiness? John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Another 36 "Shinola", while cruising in company of a Beneteau 36 in Mexico , despite being heavily loaded, always left at the same time as the Beneteau and arivved well ahead of the Benny. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > Howdy, > > > > I just got back from helping deliver a Beneteau 381 across the Tasman > > from Wellington, NZ to Sydney, Australia. It is about 1200 miles and > > took us just under 12 days. > > > > I had a good trip despite some adverse weather and current. We had > > lots of wind (45 plus knots) on the nose with 4 meter swells the first > > day or two and then calms followed by a 20 to 25 knot beam reach for > > the final week. We spent many days under double reefed main and had a > > strong counter current of up to 2 knots at times so the strong wind at > > the end of the trip was a blessing. I never expected such a strong > > easterly current which we encountered so far out, close to 500 miles > > from Aus. With four people on board and a functioning autopilot, I > > felt spoiled. I have never slept so much offshore. It will make me > > seriously think of having crew the next time I sail offshore. > > > > Anyway, I can safely say my Origami 36 would have sailed much faster and > > done the trip at least a day or two quicker despite being heavier and > > shorter. It would also have been much drier below without all the leaky > > portholes and shallow sump slopping dirty bilge water everywhere. > > Healed over, it was impossible to keep the cabin floors dry on the > > Beneteau. We ran out of fresh water on the final day and were worried > > about running out of fuel motoring through the high pressure zone while > > becalmed. This would never happen on such a short trip on a real > > offshore cruising boat with its much larger water and fuel tanks like I > > have on my 36..... > > > > The trip confirmed (again) what a fantastic boat the Origami (BS 36) > > is.....I have never seen another 36 footer that can carry what I can and > > yet rack up the miles on such a consistent basis. > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > | 24695|24523|2010-12-08 08:55:52|jhess314|Re: Cable Anchor Rode|Brent, When inspecting cable what should one look for that would indicate it's time to replace it? What causes cable to fail? Salt-water corrosion of individual strands, or the whole cable generally? Kinking? Abrasion on rocky bottoms? Repeated wrapping around the take-up drum? Do you regularly clean off your cable rode with freshwater? What didn't you like about the stainless steel cable vs galvanized, other than the expense? Best, John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Chain takes far longer to corrode dangerously, but cable is far cheaper to replace often. Cable or chain on a reel winch doesn't care about matching it perfectly to a gypsy. > With a reel winch , there is no hole in the deck, and no dead crabs rotting in a below decks chain locker > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Cable of adequate size is 1/7th the weight of chain per foot. > > Cable has a far higher safe working load for a given diameter compared to chain. 7X19 is best. It can kink , especuiialy stainless, which can also get meathooks. I have used 1/4 inch stainles in the tropics , but I'll probably go galv next time. > > Cable on deck hasn't been a problem weight wise on my 31. > > I put an eye in my cable every 50 feet, where I can attach a snubber and float , with a chain hook, if I need to.I use this snubber to tie off with. > > My book tells you how to build a cable winch suitable for wire rope. Fishboats have used comercialy made ones on the BC coast for decades, in fact they use nothing but. Many used hydraulic ones are available. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > > > I've been meaning to ask about a cable anchor rode. > > > > > > What are its strengths and weaknesses? > > > How do you size the cable compared to chain? > > > What grades or lays are best? > > > Does having the whole weight of the cable on-deck, vs the chain down below, seriously raise the CoG? I assume that cable is lighter than chain. > > > How do you attach a nylon snubber to cable? > > > How do you "tie-off" a cable to a cleat, or where ever, so as to take the anchoring strain off the winch? > > > Will cable kink? > > > I suppose our scrounger-in-chief is able to find great cable deals at his local scrap yard, but for the rest of us, where is the best place to source galvanized cable? > > > Are marine grade cable winches available for our size boats, or do you have to fabricate a winch? > > > > > > Best, > > > John > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > My anchor winch eliminates the chain locker. > > > > > > | 24696|24571|2010-12-08 10:44:48|Gord Schnell|Re: Shim stock model|Walter Re roof: No, the primary roof tarp failed miserably, split at the peak of the roof and slumped down both sides to the ground. The secondary tarp, attached under the center beam of the roof and ballasted out over the top sills of the walls is holding....for now! I've tarped the decks, for now. Re: the engine lift device: during the building process (pre foam insulation) I welded 1/2" NC nuts (8) to the edges of the pilorhouse roof beams - on the centerline, so that they lined up with the center of the PH hatch. Then I made a track of 2 lengths of angle iron _| | _ (end view) and welded 1/2" wide spacers between. With 3" or 4" bolts from below the track, inserted up thru the opening between the _| |_ , I screwed the bolts into the 1/2" nuts welded to the roof beams. Track is now suspended from the roof. Then made up a "dolly" that travels on the horizontal surfaces of the angle iron track, welded a loop to the bottom of the "dolly" and hooked my chain comealong into the loop on the dolly. Now I can use a short chain on the engine/transmission to lift it (using the chain comealong) high enough to get it out the hatch and into the cockpit. Using either my truck mounted winch or my anchor winch on the front deck, I can lower it done the tensioned winch cable to the ground. I've used it for batteries as well. Works well for situations where you have no help and must do the job by yourself.....sounds like most of us! Insulation has covered most of the installation, but I'll "rig" it one day soon and send pics Gord On 8-Dec-10, at 2:26 AM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > > > Gord, > did your roof survive the snow? > I was wondering if you could take a quick picture next time you > check your boat? I would really like to see the lifting arrangement > you installed in the pilot house. > Walter > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, gschnell@... wrote: > > > > I finally got my micrometer and the brass shimstock in the same > location...the shim is 0.010". Quite thin but remarkably resilient > for that thickness. Any indusrial supply should carry it in variety > of thicknesses. Hope that helps. Gord > > Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network. > > Envoy� sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le r�seau > de Bell. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: boatwayupnorth > > Sender: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 10:31:38 > > To: > > Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Alu hull in Origami > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John, I tried to get in touch with Gerd earlier this year without > luck. His webpage hasn't been updated for quite some time, don't > know what happened. He wants to keep a record about how many people > ordered the plans for his Yago 31, but he distributes them for free. > > If you haven't heard from him in a while I guess it will be ok if > I send you the plans. Let me know if you are interested. > > Walter > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > > > Aaron, > > > > > > Thanks for directing me to Gerd and his Yago project. From his > project manual I'm getting an idea of his way to design an origami > hull. I'm also getting good ideas from posts by Greg Elliott of > origamimagic.com. It appears that he's developed or adapted software > to design an origami hull from any other hull. > > > > > > Gerd's Yago hulls have two chines with a flat (or nearly so) > bottom. That's getting closer to what I am looking for. I've > requested the blueprints for his Yago 31. Maybe that hull will be a > good departure point for what I want. > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > John > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams > wrote: > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > Look up Gerd in the search menu he had a neet way of > explaining how to develope > > > > an Origami� design. > > > > > > > > Aaron� > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24697|24668|2010-12-08 14:26:07|brentswain38|Re: BS 36 versus Beneteau 38|My first boat was a Pipe dream, with a deep v'd bow. The second had hollow waterlines foreward. They would both drop into the trough going to windward then the buoyancy would build up suddenly at deck level and the boat would stop with a shudder. I have seen that happen with clipper bowed boats crossing a BC ferry wake . Herreschof mentions that, for this reason, a clipper bow is not a good idea on boats under 45 feet. My current boat, and the restof my designs have slightly convex lines foreward, about three inches of outward curve , so the buoyancy builds up slowly from the waterline up, instead of the minimal build up followed by a sudden buildup of buoyancy near deck level. The difference is amazing. Instead of plunging into a wave and slamming to a stop , she glides thru a headsea with minimal resistance. The knee jerk reaction is to make the bow as fine as possible. This ignores the reralities of a boat beating into head seas, and buoyancy factors. I have kept the details of my designs such as beam, waterline length etc moderate, avoindig extremes, but simply sticking to what has worked well. I also paid a lot of attention to hull balance, and directional stability, which eliminates the resistance caused by a lot of rudder movement, reducing the tendency of helm movement to act as a drogue. The steel hull and decks, with all weldable hardware welded down, eliminates the possibility of the leaks Paul mentions. The deeper , more traditional deadrise makes a more comfortable motion and eliminates the shallow bilge Paul mentions. The 2 ft wide side decks, unobstructed by gear, makes working on deck a lot safer and more comfortable. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > Brent, > What are the characteristics of your designs which contribute to their speed and seaworthiness? > John > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Another 36 "Shinola", while cruising in company of a Beneteau 36 in Mexico , despite being heavily loaded, always left at the same time as the Beneteau and arivved well ahead of the Benny. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > > > Howdy, > > > > > > I just got back from helping deliver a Beneteau 381 across the Tasman > > > from Wellington, NZ to Sydney, Australia. It is about 1200 miles and > > > took us just under 12 days. > > > > > > I had a good trip despite some adverse weather and current. We had > > > lots of wind (45 plus knots) on the nose with 4 meter swells the first > > > day or two and then calms followed by a 20 to 25 knot beam reach for > > > the final week. We spent many days under double reefed main and had a > > > strong counter current of up to 2 knots at times so the strong wind at > > > the end of the trip was a blessing. I never expected such a strong > > > easterly current which we encountered so far out, close to 500 miles > > > from Aus. With four people on board and a functioning autopilot, I > > > felt spoiled. I have never slept so much offshore. It will make me > > > seriously think of having crew the next time I sail offshore. > > > > > > Anyway, I can safely say my Origami 36 would have sailed much faster and > > > done the trip at least a day or two quicker despite being heavier and > > > shorter. It would also have been much drier below without all the leaky > > > portholes and shallow sump slopping dirty bilge water everywhere. > > > Healed over, it was impossible to keep the cabin floors dry on the > > > Beneteau. We ran out of fresh water on the final day and were worried > > > about running out of fuel motoring through the high pressure zone while > > > becalmed. This would never happen on such a short trip on a real > > > offshore cruising boat with its much larger water and fuel tanks like I > > > have on my 36..... > > > > > > The trip confirmed (again) what a fantastic boat the Origami (BS 36) > > > is.....I have never seen another 36 footer that can carry what I can and > > > yet rack up the miles on such a consistent basis. > > > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > > > | 24698|24523|2010-12-08 14:30:18|brentswain38|Re: Cable Anchor Rode|Didn't like the meat hooks , which Paul has had no problem with using galv. I've had no meat hooks on galv halyards, while friends using stainless have had a lot of problems with them , in a fraction the life of a galv halyard. Paul has a lot more experience using galv anchor rode, and can perhaps give us his evaluation of when it's time to change the galv wire anchor rode. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > Brent, > > When inspecting cable what should one look for that would indicate it's time to replace it? What causes cable to fail? Salt-water corrosion of individual strands, or the whole cable generally? Kinking? Abrasion on rocky bottoms? Repeated wrapping around the take-up drum? Do you regularly clean off your cable rode with freshwater? What didn't you like about the stainless steel cable vs galvanized, other than the expense? > > Best, > John > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Chain takes far longer to corrode dangerously, but cable is far cheaper to replace often. Cable or chain on a reel winch doesn't care about matching it perfectly to a gypsy. > > With a reel winch , there is no hole in the deck, and no dead crabs rotting in a below decks chain locker > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > Cable of adequate size is 1/7th the weight of chain per foot. > > > Cable has a far higher safe working load for a given diameter compared to chain. 7X19 is best. It can kink , especuiialy stainless, which can also get meathooks. I have used 1/4 inch stainles in the tropics , but I'll probably go galv next time. > > > Cable on deck hasn't been a problem weight wise on my 31. > > > I put an eye in my cable every 50 feet, where I can attach a snubber and float , with a chain hook, if I need to.I use this snubber to tie off with. > > > My book tells you how to build a cable winch suitable for wire rope. Fishboats have used comercialy made ones on the BC coast for decades, in fact they use nothing but. Many used hydraulic ones are available. > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > > > > > I've been meaning to ask about a cable anchor rode. > > > > > > > > What are its strengths and weaknesses? > > > > How do you size the cable compared to chain? > > > > What grades or lays are best? > > > > Does having the whole weight of the cable on-deck, vs the chain down below, seriously raise the CoG? I assume that cable is lighter than chain. > > > > How do you attach a nylon snubber to cable? > > > > How do you "tie-off" a cable to a cleat, or where ever, so as to take the anchoring strain off the winch? > > > > Will cable kink? > > > > I suppose our scrounger-in-chief is able to find great cable deals at his local scrap yard, but for the rest of us, where is the best place to source galvanized cable? > > > > Are marine grade cable winches available for our size boats, or do you have to fabricate a winch? > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > John > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > My anchor winch eliminates the chain locker. > > > > > > > > > > | 24699|9779|2010-12-08 14:40:19|brentswain38|Composting head|After a fresh dump, there is a bit of smell comming out of my composter vent.As it is 9 ft above the deck , I have rarely noticed it. On CBC radio recently, I heard a story about the "Marriage saver blanket." It is filled with activated charcoal , so when someone farts in it , the smell is absorbed by the activated charcoal, and not a whiff escapes. Those who used it swore by it ( not at it). As activated charcoal is available at aquarium supplies and elsewere , and not expensive by any stretch of the imagination, it wouldn't take too much effort to experiment with such a filtre on the vent of a composter, or holding tank for that matter. It wouldn't be too hard to make the charcoal easy and conveninet to replace from time to time. This may be an extremely simple solution.| 24700|9779|2010-12-08 21:40:24|GP|Re: Composting head|I also have a composting unit AirHead. My exhaust hose exits through the cabin where it meets the cockpit seat tucked right into the corner of the cockpit seat and the coaming and runs along the side of the cockpit coaming all the way to a stern scupper then goes right angles straight down to about 2 feet above the waterline. It is completely out of the way and no stack is required. Last summer I had two 260lb heavy weights sailing with me packing away a lot of groceries... not a single whiff of ordour by this method. Maybe the vent being 2 ft from sea level has some dispersement effect. ....(charcoal underwear???)... --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > After a fresh dump, there is a bit of smell comming out of my composter vent.As it is 9 ft above the deck , I have rarely noticed it. > On CBC radio recently, I heard a story about the "Marriage saver blanket." It is filled with activated charcoal , so when someone farts in it , the smell is absorbed by the activated charcoal, and not a whiff escapes. Those who used it swore by it ( not at it). As activated charcoal is available at aquarium supplies and elsewere , and not expensive by any stretch of the imagination, it wouldn't take too much effort to experiment with such a filtre on the vent of a composter, or holding tank for that matter. It wouldn't be too hard to make the charcoal easy and conveninet to replace from time to time. This may be an extremely simple solution. > | 24701|24668|2010-12-08 23:31:54|Mark Hamill|Re: BS 36 versus Beneteau 38|Brent: I have to say that I work on lots of yacht charter boats such as Beneteaus and Jeuneaus (sp?)and walking about the wide secure and none slip decks of Psyche is truly enjoyable. For one thing one never knows where the next slip will come from on those other boats--odd crowns and slippery "non-slip" glass texture gelcoat and so many odd hatches and glass on the decks. But I particularily like the width of Psyches side decks!! Cheers, MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 11:26 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: BS 36 versus Beneteau 38 My first boat was a Pipe dream, with a deep v'd bow. The second had hollow waterlines foreward. They would both drop into the trough going to windward then the buoyancy would build up suddenly at deck level and the boat would stop with a shudder. I have seen that happen with clipper bowed boats crossing a BC ferry wake . Herreschof mentions that, for this reason, a clipper bow is not a good idea on boats under 45 feet. My current boat, and the restof my designs have slightly convex lines foreward, about three inches of outward curve , so the buoyancy builds up slowly from the waterline up, instead of the minimal build up followed by a sudden buildup of buoyancy near deck level. The difference is amazing. Instead of plunging into a wave and slamming to a stop , she glides thru a headsea with minimal resistance. The knee jerk reaction is to make the bow as fine as possible. This ignores the reralities of a boat beating into head seas, and buoyancy factors. I have kept the details of my designs such as beam, waterline length etc moderate, avoindig extremes, but simply sticking to what has worked well. I also paid a lot of attention to hull balance, and directional stability, which eliminates the resistance caused by a lot of rudder movement, reducing the tendency of helm movement to act as a drogue. The steel hull and decks, with all weldable hardware welded down, eliminates the possibility of the leaks Paul mentions. The deeper , more traditional deadrise makes a more comfortable motion and eliminates the shallow bilge Paul mentions. The 2 ft wide side decks, unobstructed by gear, makes working on deck a lot safer and more comfortable. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > Brent, > What are the characteristics of your designs which contribute to their speed and seaworthiness? > John > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Another 36 "Shinola", while cruising in company of a Beneteau 36 in Mexico , despite being heavily loaded, always left at the same time as the Beneteau and arivved well ahead of the Benny. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > > > Howdy, > > > > > > I just got back from helping deliver a Beneteau 381 across the Tasman > > > from Wellington, NZ to Sydney, Australia. It is about 1200 miles and > > > took us just under 12 days. > > > > > > I had a good trip despite some adverse weather and current. We had > > > lots of wind (45 plus knots) on the nose with 4 meter swells the first > > > day or two and then calms followed by a 20 to 25 knot beam reach for > > > the final week. We spent many days under double reefed main and had a > > > strong counter current of up to 2 knots at times so the strong wind at > > > the end of the trip was a blessing. I never expected such a strong > > > easterly current which we encountered so far out, close to 500 miles > > > from Aus. With four people on board and a functioning autopilot, I > > > felt spoiled. I have never slept so much offshore. It will make me > > > seriously think of having crew the next time I sail offshore. > > > > > > Anyway, I can safely say my Origami 36 would have sailed much faster and > > > done the trip at least a day or two quicker despite being heavier and > > > shorter. It would also have been much drier below without all the leaky > > > portholes and shallow sump slopping dirty bilge water everywhere. > > > Healed over, it was impossible to keep the cabin floors dry on the > > > Beneteau. We ran out of fresh water on the final day and were worried > > > about running out of fuel motoring through the high pressure zone while > > > becalmed. This would never happen on such a short trip on a real > > > offshore cruising boat with its much larger water and fuel tanks like I > > > have on my 36..... > > > > > > The trip confirmed (again) what a fantastic boat the Origami (BS 36) > > > is.....I have never seen another 36 footer that can carry what I can and > > > yet rack up the miles on such a consistent basis. > > > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24702|24571|2010-12-09 05:26:57|boatwayupnorth|Re: Shim stock model|Gord, don't know how long you are going to use your shed, but if you plan to work inside for another winter or two you might consider putting something like this under the tarp to take the load of: http://www.byggmax.com/no-no/Prod/PID-1002.aspx Sorry, the page is in Norwegian, but you get the idea from the pictures. Here it's used in houses as a windbreaker under the outer layer of wood. It's still relatively cheap and a friend of mine says it makes a world of a difference compared to tarp only. Maybe you can find something similar over there. "Re: the engine lift device" - Smart! I get it now. But if you have time to take a picture it's still appreciated. Have you insulated the 1/2" NC nuts when you are not using them? Or is condensation not a problem? Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > Walter > Re roof: No, the primary roof tarp failed miserably, split at the peak > of the roof and slumped down both sides to the ground. The secondary > tarp, attached under the center beam of the roof and ballasted out > over the top sills of the walls is holding....for now! > I've tarped the decks, for now. > Re: the engine lift device: during the building process (pre foam > insulation) I welded 1/2" NC nuts (8) to the edges of the pilorhouse > roof beams - on the centerline, so that they lined up with the center > of the PH hatch. Then I made a track of 2 lengths of angle iron _| | > _ (end view) and welded 1/2" wide spacers between. With 3" or 4" > bolts from below the track, inserted up thru the opening between the > _| |_ , I screwed the bolts into the 1/2" nuts welded to the roof > beams. Track is now suspended from the roof. Then made up a "dolly" > that travels on the horizontal surfaces of the angle iron track, > welded a loop to the bottom of the "dolly" and hooked my chain > comealong into the loop on the dolly. Now I can use a short chain on > the engine/transmission to lift it (using the chain comealong) high > enough to get it out the hatch and into the cockpit. Using either my > truck mounted winch or my anchor winch on the front deck, I can lower > it done the tensioned winch cable to the ground. I've used it for > batteries as well. Works well for situations where you have no help > and must do the job by yourself.....sounds like most of us! > Insulation has covered most of the installation, but I'll "rig" it one > day soon and send pics > Gord > > On 8-Dec-10, at 2:26 AM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > > > > > > > Gord, > > did your roof survive the snow? > > I was wondering if you could take a quick picture next time you > > check your boat? I would really like to see the lifting arrangement > > you installed in the pilot house. > > Walter > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, gschnell@ wrote: > > > > > > I finally got my micrometer and the brass shimstock in the same > > location...the shim is 0.010". Quite thin but remarkably resilient > > for that thickness. Any indusrial supply should carry it in variety > > of thicknesses. Hope that helps. Gord > > > Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network. > > > Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau > > de Bell. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: boatwayupnorth > > > Sender: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 10:31:38 > > > To: > > > Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Alu hull in Origami > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John, I tried to get in touch with Gerd earlier this year without > > luck. His webpage hasn't been updated for quite some time, don't > > know what happened. He wants to keep a record about how many people > > ordered the plans for his Yago 31, but he distributes them for free. > > > If you haven't heard from him in a while I guess it will be ok if > > I send you the plans. Let me know if you are interested. > > > Walter > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > > > > > Aaron, > > > > > > > > Thanks for directing me to Gerd and his Yago project. From his > > project manual I'm getting an idea of his way to design an origami > > hull. I'm also getting good ideas from posts by Greg Elliott of > > origamimagic.com. It appears that he's developed or adapted software > > to design an origami hull from any other hull. > > > > > > > > Gerd's Yago hulls have two chines with a flat (or nearly so) > > bottom. That's getting closer to what I am looking for. I've > > requested the blueprints for his Yago 31. Maybe that hull will be a > > good departure point for what I want. > > > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > Look up Gerd in the search menu he had a neet way of > > explaining how to develope > > > > > an Origami design. > > > > > > > > > > Aaron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24703|24703|2010-12-09 11:29:22|GP|Cockpit chart plotter|I don't have one. I use SeaClear on a notebook inside the pilot house. However, last year got caught in a blow on Hecate Str and headed for shelter. Getting there took the boat through a mine field of shoals. The sea was big blowing a gale. Because the trim tab was overpowered I had to duck into the pilot house repeatedly to read the chart. (My sails were reefed right down). I was thinking a chart plotter outside on the back of the pilot house clearly visible from the rudder position would have been helpful. Has anyone done this? thanks Gary| 24704|24668|2010-12-09 11:42:12|haidan|Re: BS 36 versus Beneteau 38|Careful now, you're gonna get in the habit of, when you lose your balance reaching for the rail and that could spell disaster on most of those gin palaces you've got at DSYC. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > Brent: > I have to say that I work on lots of yacht charter boats such as Beneteaus and Jeuneaus (sp?)and walking about the wide secure and none slip decks of Psyche is truly enjoyable. For one thing one never knows where the next slip will come from on those other boats--odd crowns and slippery "non-slip" glass texture gelcoat and so many odd hatches and glass on the decks. But I particularily like the width of Psyches side decks!! Cheers, MarkH > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: brentswain38 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 11:26 AM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: BS 36 versus Beneteau 38 > > > > My first boat was a Pipe dream, with a deep v'd bow. The second had hollow waterlines foreward. They would both drop into the trough going to windward then the buoyancy would build up suddenly at deck level and the boat would stop with a shudder. I have seen that happen with clipper bowed boats crossing a BC ferry wake . Herreschof mentions that, for this reason, a clipper bow is not a good idea on boats under 45 feet. My current boat, and the restof my designs have slightly convex lines foreward, about three inches of outward curve , so the buoyancy builds up slowly from the waterline up, instead of the minimal build up followed by a sudden buildup of buoyancy near deck level. The difference is amazing. Instead of plunging into a wave and slamming to a stop , she glides thru a headsea with minimal resistance. > The knee jerk reaction is to make the bow as fine as possible. This ignores the reralities of a boat beating into head seas, and buoyancy factors. > I have kept the details of my designs such as beam, waterline length etc moderate, avoindig extremes, but simply sticking to what has worked well. I also paid a lot of attention to hull balance, and directional stability, which eliminates the resistance caused by a lot of rudder movement, reducing the tendency of helm movement to act as a drogue. > The steel hull and decks, with all weldable hardware welded down, eliminates the possibility of the leaks Paul mentions. The deeper , more traditional deadrise makes a more comfortable motion and eliminates the shallow bilge Paul mentions. > The 2 ft wide side decks, unobstructed by gear, makes working on deck a lot safer and more comfortable. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > Brent, > > What are the characteristics of your designs which contribute to their speed and seaworthiness? > > John > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > Another 36 "Shinola", while cruising in company of a Beneteau 36 in Mexico , despite being heavily loaded, always left at the same time as the Beneteau and arivved well ahead of the Benny. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > > > > > Howdy, > > > > > > > > I just got back from helping deliver a Beneteau 381 across the Tasman > > > > from Wellington, NZ to Sydney, Australia. It is about 1200 miles and > > > > took us just under 12 days. > > > > > > > > I had a good trip despite some adverse weather and current. We had > > > > lots of wind (45 plus knots) on the nose with 4 meter swells the first > > > > day or two and then calms followed by a 20 to 25 knot beam reach for > > > > the final week. We spent many days under double reefed main and had a > > > > strong counter current of up to 2 knots at times so the strong wind at > > > > the end of the trip was a blessing. I never expected such a strong > > > > easterly current which we encountered so far out, close to 500 miles > > > > from Aus. With four people on board and a functioning autopilot, I > > > > felt spoiled. I have never slept so much offshore. It will make me > > > > seriously think of having crew the next time I sail offshore. > > > > > > > > Anyway, I can safely say my Origami 36 would have sailed much faster and > > > > done the trip at least a day or two quicker despite being heavier and > > > > shorter. It would also have been much drier below without all the leaky > > > > portholes and shallow sump slopping dirty bilge water everywhere. > > > > Healed over, it was impossible to keep the cabin floors dry on the > > > > Beneteau. We ran out of fresh water on the final day and were worried > > > > about running out of fuel motoring through the high pressure zone while > > > > becalmed. This would never happen on such a short trip on a real > > > > offshore cruising boat with its much larger water and fuel tanks like I > > > > have on my 36..... > > > > > > > > The trip confirmed (again) what a fantastic boat the Origami (BS 36) > > > > is.....I have never seen another 36 footer that can carry what I can and > > > > yet rack up the miles on such a consistent basis. > > > > > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24705|24703|2010-12-09 11:48:28|haidan|Re: Cockpit chart plotter|I might at some point put something inside next to the window on the pilot house's back wall so I can see it from the cockpit and it's totally protected from weather and thievery. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > I don't have one. I use SeaClear on a notebook inside the pilot house. However, last year got caught in a blow on Hecate Str and headed for shelter. Getting there took the boat through a mine field of shoals. The sea was big blowing a gale. Because the trim tab was overpowered I had to duck into the pilot house repeatedly to read the chart. (My sails were reefed right down). I was thinking a chart plotter outside on the back of the pilot house clearly visible from the rudder position would have been helpful. Has anyone done this? > > thanks > Gary > | 24706|9779|2010-12-09 12:07:30|scott|Re: Composting head|I have a natures head and was planning on putting up a stand pipe on the stern of the boat. Because it is 20ft from where the head is installed though I simply ran the vent hose to the dorade over the head compartment and planned on running a longer hose at a later date and installing a stand pipe. However we have been unable to detect any odor coming out of the dorade box even when sitting on deck beside it. We make sure there is adequate composting material in the head and turn the mixer 4 or 5 times as soon as we are finished using the head. We have been using it part time with 3 people for 7 months or so now and only emptied it twice .. once at two months and once 5 months. We simply dumped the base into a standard tall kitchen garbage bag. It used about 1/4 of the volume of the garbage bag. There was no noxious odor either time. Mostly it just had an odor of musty earth. Even the toilet paper that had been thrown in was composted. No special kind of toilet paper.. just the same Charmin or northern that we use at the house. When dumping the compost out we found that it all feel out and left the base clean with no residue sticking to the inside other than a bit to the stainless mixing rod. The rotomolded plastic acts as if it is a nonstick material so far in our experience. Ben is using the same model and has several years experience so he could probably give a better long term usage report. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > I also have a composting unit AirHead. My exhaust hose exits through the cabin where it meets the cockpit seat tucked right into the corner of the cockpit seat and the coaming and runs along the side of the cockpit coaming all the way to a stern scupper then goes right angles straight down to about 2 feet above the waterline. It is completely out of the way and no stack is required. Last summer I had two 260lb heavy weights sailing with me packing away a lot of groceries... not a single whiff of ordour by this method. Maybe the vent being 2 ft from sea level has some dispersement effect. > > ....(charcoal underwear???)... > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > After a fresh dump, there is a bit of smell comming out of my composter vent.As it is 9 ft above the deck , I have rarely noticed it. > > On CBC radio recently, I heard a story about the "Marriage saver blanket." It is filled with activated charcoal , so when someone farts in it , the smell is absorbed by the activated charcoal, and not a whiff escapes. Those who used it swore by it ( not at it). As activated charcoal is available at aquarium supplies and elsewere , and not expensive by any stretch of the imagination, it wouldn't take too much effort to experiment with such a filtre on the vent of a composter, or holding tank for that matter. It wouldn't be too hard to make the charcoal easy and conveninet to replace from time to time. This may be an extremely simple solution. > > > | 24707|24523|2010-12-09 14:02:22|Paul Wilson|Re: Cable Anchor Rode|>>>>>Didn't like the meat hooks , which Paul has had no problem with using galv. I've had no meat hooks on galv halyards, while friends using stainless have had a lot of problems with them , in a fraction the life of a galv halyard. Paul has a lot more experience using galv anchor rode, and can perhaps give us his evaluation of when it's time to change the galv wire anchor rode. The cable will last me about 2 years in the tropics. If you grease it often and can rinse it with fresh water, it will last longer and be less of a mess on deck but at some time the effort isn't worth it since the cable is so cheap. When it gets too rusty, it is less flexible and gets stiff. If you get any meat hooks, it definitely needs replacing. I originally used 1/4 inch cable with a nicropress splice. I broke the cable at the splice when it got caught in coral so I now use larger cable of about 3/8 inch or 10 mm with a soft Flemish eye splice. The larger cable is also heavier so has more of a catenary effect and the boat rides better at anchor. I usually just get whatever cheap galvanized wire (6 X7?) that is available, preferably with a rope core. The rope core is an advantage since the oil soaked in the core helps stop corrosion and the wire is easy to un-lay and splice. I have always been able to find the wire and bought it in Samoa and Fiji without a problem since it is commonly used in farming and general construction. Good galv chain is much harder to find. I have seen cheap galvanizing on chain last less than a year in the tropics. I bought some chain in Samoa that lost all its galvanizing in less than a month in the corrosive mud of Suva harbor. A great reference on rigging showing the Flemish eye is here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/nstm/ch613.pdf Cheers, Paul| 24708|24571|2010-12-09 17:26:10|Gord Schnell|Re: Shim stock model|Walter I took some shots of the Hoist Arrangement you had requested. Quality isn't great...file size reduced...but it will give you an idea. Note: The attachment points for the track, are now buried under foam insulation, but you can see the outline of a 9/16" nut in one shot...each nut just welded to one of the 3/8"x1.5" cabintop beams. To move items out of the cabin, I just unbolt the track and reinstall it with part of the track extending into the cockpit. Pretty much anything that will fit thru the cabin door, can be moved in or out. Once I have it in the cockpit, I hang a pulley from my radar arch, run my truck winch cable up to the arch pulley and down to the load to be moved, lift it onto the cockpit lockers, chain it to the cable coming up to the radar arch and slide it down to the ground by leting out the winch cable. To date, I have used this to remove the engine from the boat and reinstall it, haul heavy equipment and materials up to the deck and change out my battery bank. Note: Put a stop on either end of the track so your load doesn't accidentally unload off the track and onto you!!! Hope that helps. Gord On 8-Dec-10, at 2:26 AM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > > > Gord, > did your roof survive the snow? > I was wondering if you could take a quick picture next time you > check your boat? I would really like to see the lifting arrangement > you installed in the pilot house. > Walter > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, gschnell@... wrote: > > > > I finally got my micrometer and the brass shimstock in the same > location...the shim is 0.010". Quite thin but remarkably resilient > for that thickness. Any indusrial supply should carry it in variety > of thicknesses. Hope that helps. Gord > > Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network. > > Envoy� sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le r�seau > de Bell. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: boatwayupnorth > > Sender: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 10:31:38 > > To: > > Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Alu hull in Origami > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John, I tried to get in touch with Gerd earlier this year without > luck. His webpage hasn't been updated for quite some time, don't > know what happened. He wants to keep a record about how many people > ordered the plans for his Yago 31, but he distributes them for free. > > If you haven't heard from him in a while I guess it will be ok if > I send you the plans. Let me know if you are interested. > > Walter > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > > > Aaron, > > > > > > Thanks for directing me to Gerd and his Yago project. From his > project manual I'm getting an idea of his way to design an origami > hull. I'm also getting good ideas from posts by Greg Elliott of > origamimagic.com. It appears that he's developed or adapted software > to design an origami hull from any other hull. > > > > > > Gerd's Yago hulls have two chines with a flat (or nearly so) > bottom. That's getting closer to what I am looking for. I've > requested the blueprints for his Yago 31. Maybe that hull will be a > good departure point for what I want. > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > John > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams > wrote: > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > Look up Gerd in the search menu he had a neet way of > explaining how to develope > > > > an Origami� design. > > > > > > > > Aaron� > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24709|24571|2010-12-09 17:39:17|Gord Schnell|Re: Shim stock model|Walter Thanks for the link. I sent you pics of the hoist/track system today. Re: the shed....It is a full sized shed: 20' X 50' with 18' high wall. The roof 2" X 4" on 16" centers.....it's just too big (too tall) and not nearly well enough sheltered from the winds....anyway, this should be the last winter. Re: the 9/19" nuts.....they are foamed over and out of sight. When the "ceiling" is fully finished they will be fully enclosed behind the paneling with just a rubber plug covering the hole to access each nut. Hopefully that will eliminate condensation Gord On 9-Dec-10, at 2:26 AM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > > > Gord, > don't know how long you are going to use your shed, but if you plan > to work inside for another winter or two you might consider putting > something like this under the tarp to take the load of: > http://www.byggmax.com/no-no/Prod/PID-1002.aspx > Sorry, the page is in Norwegian, but you get the idea from the > pictures. Here it's used in houses as a windbreaker under the outer > layer of wood. It's still relatively cheap and a friend of mine says > it makes a world of a difference compared to tarp only. Maybe you > can find something similar over there. > "Re: the engine lift device" - Smart! I get it now. But if you have > time to take a picture it's still appreciated. Have you insulated > the 1/2" NC nuts when you are not using them? Or is condensation not > a problem? > Walter > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > wrote: > > > > Walter > > Re roof: No, the primary roof tarp failed miserably, split at the > peak > > of the roof and slumped down both sides to the ground. The secondary > > tarp, attached under the center beam of the roof and ballasted out > > over the top sills of the walls is holding....for now! > > I've tarped the decks, for now. > > Re: the engine lift device: during the building process (pre foam > > insulation) I welded 1/2" NC nuts (8) to the edges of the pilorhouse > > roof beams - on the centerline, so that they lined up with the > center > > of the PH hatch. Then I made a track of 2 lengths of angle iron _| | > > _ (end view) and welded 1/2" wide spacers between. With 3" or 4" > > bolts from below the track, inserted up thru the opening between the > > _| |_ , I screwed the bolts into the 1/2" nuts welded to the roof > > beams. Track is now suspended from the roof. Then made up a "dolly" > > that travels on the horizontal surfaces of the angle iron track, > > welded a loop to the bottom of the "dolly" and hooked my chain > > comealong into the loop on the dolly. Now I can use a short chain on > > the engine/transmission to lift it (using the chain comealong) high > > enough to get it out the hatch and into the cockpit. Using either my > > truck mounted winch or my anchor winch on the front deck, I can > lower > > it done the tensioned winch cable to the ground. I've used it for > > batteries as well. Works well for situations where you have no help > > and must do the job by yourself.....sounds like most of us! > > Insulation has covered most of the installation, but I'll "rig" it > one > > day soon and send pics > > Gord > > > > On 8-Dec-10, at 2:26 AM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Gord, > > > did your roof survive the snow? > > > I was wondering if you could take a quick picture next time you > > > check your boat? I would really like to see the lifting > arrangement > > > you installed in the pilot house. > > > Walter > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, gschnell@ wrote: > > > > > > > > I finally got my micrometer and the brass shimstock in the same > > > location...the shim is 0.010". Quite thin but remarkably resilient > > > for that thickness. Any indusrial supply should carry it in > variety > > > of thicknesses. Hope that helps. Gord > > > > Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network. > > > > Envoy� sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le r�seau > > > de Bell. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: boatwayupnorth > > > > Sender: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 10:31:38 > > > > To: > > > > Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Alu hull in Origami > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John, I tried to get in touch with Gerd earlier this year > without > > > luck. His webpage hasn't been updated for quite some time, don't > > > know what happened. He wants to keep a record about how many > people > > > ordered the plans for his Yago 31, but he distributes them for > free. > > > > If you haven't heard from him in a while I guess it will be ok > if > > > I send you the plans. Let me know if you are interested. > > > > Walter > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Aaron, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for directing me to Gerd and his Yago project. From his > > > project manual I'm getting an idea of his way to design an origami > > > hull. I'm also getting good ideas from posts by Greg Elliott of > > > origamimagic.com. It appears that he's developed or adapted > software > > > to design an origami hull from any other hull. > > > > > > > > > > Gerd's Yago hulls have two chines with a flat (or nearly so) > > > bottom. That's getting closer to what I am looking for. I've > > > requested the blueprints for his Yago 31. Maybe that hull will > be a > > > good departure point for what I want. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > Look up Gerd in the search menu he had a neet way of > > > explaining how to develope > > > > > > an Origami� design. > > > > > > > > > > > > Aaron� > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24710|9779|2010-12-09 17:43:29|brentswain38|Re: Composting head|Gary I've been downwind of yours in a dinghy. Definitely a bit of odour. An icecream bucket or tupper ware container, full of activated charcoal, with a hole in one end, over the vent, and another hole in the other end, for an outlet will let one know if the principle works or not, cheaply and quickly. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > I also have a composting unit AirHead. My exhaust hose exits through the cabin where it meets the cockpit seat tucked right into the corner of the cockpit seat and the coaming and runs along the side of the cockpit coaming all the way to a stern scupper then goes right angles straight down to about 2 feet above the waterline. It is completely out of the way and no stack is required. Last summer I had two 260lb heavy weights sailing with me packing away a lot of groceries... not a single whiff of ordour by this method. Maybe the vent being 2 ft from sea level has some dispersement effect. > > ....(charcoal underwear???)... > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > After a fresh dump, there is a bit of smell comming out of my composter vent.As it is 9 ft above the deck , I have rarely noticed it. > > On CBC radio recently, I heard a story about the "Marriage saver blanket." It is filled with activated charcoal , so when someone farts in it , the smell is absorbed by the activated charcoal, and not a whiff escapes. Those who used it swore by it ( not at it). As activated charcoal is available at aquarium supplies and elsewere , and not expensive by any stretch of the imagination, it wouldn't take too much effort to experiment with such a filtre on the vent of a composter, or holding tank for that matter. It wouldn't be too hard to make the charcoal easy and conveninet to replace from time to time. This may be an extremely simple solution. > > > | 24711|24668|2010-12-09 17:47:34|brentswain38|Re: BS 36 versus Beneteau 38|My first boat, the Pipe Dream, had 2 ft side decks . I took them for granted and went for 18 inch side decks on my next boat, a big mistake, which I cursed for years , until I went for 2 ft again on my current boat. My 26 is too narrow and small for anything over 18 inches , but anything over 30 feet should have at least 2 ft side decks. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > Brent: > I have to say that I work on lots of yacht charter boats such as Beneteaus and Jeuneaus (sp?)and walking about the wide secure and none slip decks of Psyche is truly enjoyable. For one thing one never knows where the next slip will come from on those other boats--odd crowns and slippery "non-slip" glass texture gelcoat and so many odd hatches and glass on the decks. But I particularily like the width of Psyches side decks!! Cheers, MarkH > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: brentswain38 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 11:26 AM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: BS 36 versus Beneteau 38 > > > > My first boat was a Pipe dream, with a deep v'd bow. The second had hollow waterlines foreward. They would both drop into the trough going to windward then the buoyancy would build up suddenly at deck level and the boat would stop with a shudder. I have seen that happen with clipper bowed boats crossing a BC ferry wake . Herreschof mentions that, for this reason, a clipper bow is not a good idea on boats under 45 feet. My current boat, and the restof my designs have slightly convex lines foreward, about three inches of outward curve , so the buoyancy builds up slowly from the waterline up, instead of the minimal build up followed by a sudden buildup of buoyancy near deck level. The difference is amazing. Instead of plunging into a wave and slamming to a stop , she glides thru a headsea with minimal resistance. > The knee jerk reaction is to make the bow as fine as possible. This ignores the reralities of a boat beating into head seas, and buoyancy factors. > I have kept the details of my designs such as beam, waterline length etc moderate, avoindig extremes, but simply sticking to what has worked well. I also paid a lot of attention to hull balance, and directional stability, which eliminates the resistance caused by a lot of rudder movement, reducing the tendency of helm movement to act as a drogue. > The steel hull and decks, with all weldable hardware welded down, eliminates the possibility of the leaks Paul mentions. The deeper , more traditional deadrise makes a more comfortable motion and eliminates the shallow bilge Paul mentions. > The 2 ft wide side decks, unobstructed by gear, makes working on deck a lot safer and more comfortable. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > Brent, > > What are the characteristics of your designs which contribute to their speed and seaworthiness? > > John > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > Another 36 "Shinola", while cruising in company of a Beneteau 36 in Mexico , despite being heavily loaded, always left at the same time as the Beneteau and arivved well ahead of the Benny. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > > > > > Howdy, > > > > > > > > I just got back from helping deliver a Beneteau 381 across the Tasman > > > > from Wellington, NZ to Sydney, Australia. It is about 1200 miles and > > > > took us just under 12 days. > > > > > > > > I had a good trip despite some adverse weather and current. We had > > > > lots of wind (45 plus knots) on the nose with 4 meter swells the first > > > > day or two and then calms followed by a 20 to 25 knot beam reach for > > > > the final week. We spent many days under double reefed main and had a > > > > strong counter current of up to 2 knots at times so the strong wind at > > > > the end of the trip was a blessing. I never expected such a strong > > > > easterly current which we encountered so far out, close to 500 miles > > > > from Aus. With four people on board and a functioning autopilot, I > > > > felt spoiled. I have never slept so much offshore. It will make me > > > > seriously think of having crew the next time I sail offshore. > > > > > > > > Anyway, I can safely say my Origami 36 would have sailed much faster and > > > > done the trip at least a day or two quicker despite being heavier and > > > > shorter. It would also have been much drier below without all the leaky > > > > portholes and shallow sump slopping dirty bilge water everywhere. > > > > Healed over, it was impossible to keep the cabin floors dry on the > > > > Beneteau. We ran out of fresh water on the final day and were worried > > > > about running out of fuel motoring through the high pressure zone while > > > > becalmed. This would never happen on such a short trip on a real > > > > offshore cruising boat with its much larger water and fuel tanks like I > > > > have on my 36..... > > > > > > > > The trip confirmed (again) what a fantastic boat the Origami (BS 36) > > > > is.....I have never seen another 36 footer that can carry what I can and > > > > yet rack up the miles on such a consistent basis. > > > > > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24712|24712|2010-12-09 18:14:09|Gord Schnell|Engine (& cargo) hoist|Walter I took some shots of the Hoist Arrangement you had requested. Quality isn't great...file size reduced...but it will give you an idea. Note: The attachment points for the track, are now buried under foam insulation, but you can see the outline of a 9/16" nut in one shot...each nut just welded to one of the 3/8"x1.5" cabintop beams. To move items out of the cabin, I just unbolt the track and reinstall it with part of the track extending into the cockpit. Pretty much anything that will fit thru the cabin door, can be moved in or out. Once I have it in the cockpit, I hang a pulley from my radar arch, run my truck winch cable up to the arch pulley and down to the load to be moved, lift it onto the cockpit lockers, chain it to the cable coming up to the radar arch and slide it down to the ground by leting out the winch cable. To date, I have used this to remove the engine from the boat and reinstall it, haul heavy equipment and materials up to the deck and change out my battery bank. Note: Put a stop on either end of the track so your load doesn't accidentally unload off the track and onto you!!! Hope that helps. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24713|9779|2010-12-09 19:39:00|GP|Re: Composting head|Oh yeah... I do recollect that day... you were testing your home built one and emptied the harbour. Perhaps you should try anchoring again downwind as I now use Charmin (charcoal flavour). --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Gary > I've been downwind of yours in a dinghy. Definitely a bit of odour. > An icecream bucket or tupper ware container, full of activated charcoal, with a hole in one end, over the vent, and another hole in the other end, for an outlet will let one know if the principle works or not, cheaply and quickly. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > > > I also have a composting unit AirHead. My exhaust hose exits through the cabin where it meets the cockpit seat tucked right into the corner of the cockpit seat and the coaming and runs along the side of the cockpit coaming all the way to a stern scupper then goes right angles straight down to about 2 feet above the waterline. It is completely out of the way and no stack is required. Last summer I had two 260lb heavy weights sailing with me packing away a lot of groceries... not a single whiff of ordour by this method. Maybe the vent being 2 ft from sea level has some dispersement effect. > > > > ....(charcoal underwear???)... > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > After a fresh dump, there is a bit of smell comming out of my composter vent.As it is 9 ft above the deck , I have rarely noticed it. > > > On CBC radio recently, I heard a story about the "Marriage saver blanket." It is filled with activated charcoal , so when someone farts in it , the smell is absorbed by the activated charcoal, and not a whiff escapes. Those who used it swore by it ( not at it). As activated charcoal is available at aquarium supplies and elsewere , and not expensive by any stretch of the imagination, it wouldn't take too much effort to experiment with such a filtre on the vent of a composter, or holding tank for that matter. It wouldn't be too hard to make the charcoal easy and conveninet to replace from time to time. This may be an extremely simple solution. > > > > > > | 24714|24714|2010-12-09 23:24:56|Gordo|Interior Hoist System|Here is a handy "Hoist and Track" that will help you to replace old battery banks or remove your engine/transmission for service or replacement. If your pilothouse door is large enough to accomodate the item, this system will allow you to install/remove those larger pieces of machinery inside your boat, singlehanded. The system consists of a Track and Car assembly (you build) and a chain hoist (comealong) to move the item from the interior to the cockpit or vice versa. Once the item is in the cockpit, getting it to the ground and/or back in the cockpit can be achieved using a winch or comealong to maneuver it to the ground. When your done, the system unbolts and stores easily.| 24715|24715|2010-12-09 23:39:51|Gord Schnell|Hoist and Track System|I posted some photos of a hoist and track system I developed for removing my engine (for rebuild). Thought some of you might be interested in building one. It's also helpful for batteries and cargo, especially if you have no help available. It has allowed me to remove and reinstall my engine/transmission and a full battery bank singlehanded. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/2002212211/pic/list?mode=slide&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24717|24715|2010-12-10 00:15:50|brentswain38|Re: Hoist and Track System|Great innovation. So easy to do when in the bare steel stage. For the 31 and 36 , lowering it thru the main hatch puts it right on the mounts. Your rig is great for an engine under tyhe floor. Have you fired up the VW yet? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > I posted some photos of a hoist and track system I developed for > removing my engine (for rebuild). Thought some of you might be > interested in building one. It's also helpful for batteries and cargo, > especially if you have no help available. It has allowed me to remove > and reinstall my engine/transmission and a full battery bank > singlehanded. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/2002212211/pic/list?mode=slide&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24718|9779|2010-12-10 00:17:25|brentswain38|Re: Composting head|We were at Tree Island the only two boats there at the time. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > Oh yeah... I do recollect that day... you were testing your home built one and emptied the harbour. Perhaps you should try anchoring again downwind as I now use Charmin (charcoal flavour). > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Gary > > I've been downwind of yours in a dinghy. Definitely a bit of odour. > > An icecream bucket or tupper ware container, full of activated charcoal, with a hole in one end, over the vent, and another hole in the other end, for an outlet will let one know if the principle works or not, cheaply and quickly. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > > > > > I also have a composting unit AirHead. My exhaust hose exits through the cabin where it meets the cockpit seat tucked right into the corner of the cockpit seat and the coaming and runs along the side of the cockpit coaming all the way to a stern scupper then goes right angles straight down to about 2 feet above the waterline. It is completely out of the way and no stack is required. Last summer I had two 260lb heavy weights sailing with me packing away a lot of groceries... not a single whiff of ordour by this method. Maybe the vent being 2 ft from sea level has some dispersement effect. > > > > > > ....(charcoal underwear???)... > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > After a fresh dump, there is a bit of smell comming out of my composter vent.As it is 9 ft above the deck , I have rarely noticed it. > > > > On CBC radio recently, I heard a story about the "Marriage saver blanket." It is filled with activated charcoal , so when someone farts in it , the smell is absorbed by the activated charcoal, and not a whiff escapes. Those who used it swore by it ( not at it). As activated charcoal is available at aquarium supplies and elsewere , and not expensive by any stretch of the imagination, it wouldn't take too much effort to experiment with such a filtre on the vent of a composter, or holding tank for that matter. It wouldn't be too hard to make the charcoal easy and conveninet to replace from time to time. This may be an extremely simple solution. > > > > > > > > > > | 24719|24715|2010-12-10 01:05:20|Aaron Williams|Re: Hoist and Track System|Neat Idea...I had been contemplating something like that only with aluminum. Aaron ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 8:15:41 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Hoist and Track System   Great innovation. So easy to do when in the bare steel stage. For the 31 and 36 , lowering it thru the main hatch puts it right on the mounts. Your rig is great for an engine under tyhe floor. Have you fired up the VW yet? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > I posted some photos of a hoist and track system I developed for > removing my engine (for rebuild). Thought some of you might be > interested in building one. It's also helpful for batteries and cargo, > especially if you have no help available. It has allowed me to remove > and reinstall my engine/transmission and a full battery bank > singlehanded. > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/2002212211/pic/list?mode=slide&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc >c > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24720|9779|2010-12-10 01:06:38|brentswain38|Re: Composting head|When you have just taken a fresh dump in any composter, there is no way the smell dissappears instantly , or in the time it takes to leave the vent pipe. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > We were at Tree Island the only two boats there at the time. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > > > Oh yeah... I do recollect that day... you were testing your home built one and emptied the harbour. Perhaps you should try anchoring again downwind as I now use Charmin (charcoal flavour). > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > Gary > > > I've been downwind of yours in a dinghy. Definitely a bit of odour. > > > An icecream bucket or tupper ware container, full of activated charcoal, with a hole in one end, over the vent, and another hole in the other end, for an outlet will let one know if the principle works or not, cheaply and quickly. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > > > > > > > I also have a composting unit AirHead. My exhaust hose exits through the cabin where it meets the cockpit seat tucked right into the corner of the cockpit seat and the coaming and runs along the side of the cockpit coaming all the way to a stern scupper then goes right angles straight down to about 2 feet above the waterline. It is completely out of the way and no stack is required. Last summer I had two 260lb heavy weights sailing with me packing away a lot of groceries... not a single whiff of ordour by this method. Maybe the vent being 2 ft from sea level has some dispersement effect. > > > > > > > > ....(charcoal underwear???)... > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > After a fresh dump, there is a bit of smell comming out of my composter vent.As it is 9 ft above the deck , I have rarely noticed it. > > > > > On CBC radio recently, I heard a story about the "Marriage saver blanket." It is filled with activated charcoal , so when someone farts in it , the smell is absorbed by the activated charcoal, and not a whiff escapes. Those who used it swore by it ( not at it). As activated charcoal is available at aquarium supplies and elsewere , and not expensive by any stretch of the imagination, it wouldn't take too much effort to experiment with such a filtre on the vent of a composter, or holding tank for that matter. It wouldn't be too hard to make the charcoal easy and conveninet to replace from time to time. This may be an extremely simple solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | 24721|24715|2010-12-10 01:53:06|Doug Jackson|Re: Hoist and Track System|Nice. Thanks for sharing that. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Gord Schnell To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 10:39:42 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Hoist and Track System I posted some photos of a hoist and track system I developed for removing my engine (for rebuild). Thought some of you might be interested in building one. It's also helpful for batteries and cargo, especially if you have no help available. It has allowed me to remove and reinstall my engine/transmission and a full battery bank singlehanded. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/2002212211/pic/list?mode=slide&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24722|24571|2010-12-10 09:06:36|boatwayupnorth|Re: Shim stock model|Gord: Thank's a lot. Looks like a real back-saver and easily one of the best investments one can make while building. I'm sure you will use this for a lot more than you thought of when you made it. If I ever come so far I will ruthlessly steal this idea. And thanks for taking the trouble to take pictures, it makes it so much easier to get an idea - especially for us whose first language isn't English. I saw that you have the engine under the pilothouse sole. Has anybody managed that on the 36 ft? Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > Walter > I took some shots of the Hoist Arrangement you had requested. Quality > isn't great...file size reduced...but it will give you an idea. > Note: The attachment points for the track, are now buried under foam > insulation, but you can see the outline of a 9/16" nut in one > shot...each nut just welded to one of the 3/8"x1.5" cabintop beams. > To move items out of the cabin, I just unbolt the track and reinstall > it with part of the track extending into the cockpit. Pretty much > anything that will fit thru the cabin door, can be moved in or out. > Once I have it in the cockpit, I hang a pulley from my radar arch, run > my truck winch cable up to the arch pulley and down to the load to be > moved, lift it onto the cockpit lockers, chain it to the cable coming > up to the radar arch and slide it down to the ground by leting out the > winch cable. > To date, I have used this to remove the engine from the boat and > reinstall it, haul heavy equipment and materials up to the deck and > change out my battery bank. > Note: Put a stop on either end of the track so your load doesn't > accidentally unload off the track and onto you!!! > Hope that helps. > Gord > On 8-Dec-10, at 2:26 AM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > > > > > > > Gord, > > did your roof survive the snow? > > I was wondering if you could take a quick picture next time you > > check your boat? I would really like to see the lifting arrangement > > you installed in the pilot house. > > Walter | 24723|24523|2010-12-10 11:33:12|Denis Buggy|Re: Cable Anchor Rode|----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Wilson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Cable Anchor Rode PAUL A GREAT REFERENCE INDEED - MUCH OBLIGED DENISBUGGY A great reference on rigging showing the Flemish eye is here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/nstm/ch613.pdf Cheers, Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24724|24724|2010-12-10 12:08:22|wild_explorer|BrentBoat Stability (BS36)|I have done stability evaluation of BS36. Standard Brent's arrangement with foot-well, cabin and wheelhouse, single keel model. Differences in this 3D model: IRON/steel plate in the keel (NOT LEAD) for ballast, STEEL mast and boom. RESULTS: AVS - 160 deg (sails down), 155 deg (with sails up). Max Dynamic heeling angle - about 110 deg Very small negative curve (less than 1/10 of positive part) Please note: Boat with lead keel and aluminum mast/boom will have BETTER stability. Stability curve will be available in file section: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/Origami_hulls_and_stability/| 24725|24571|2010-12-10 12:26:26|Etc|Re: Alu hull in Origami|Hi all, I just saw the photos of the aluminum Bs36, Andes. Wow!!! That's a really great job! What is the approximate price of the Alu for this boat ? Best regards, Etienne| 24726|24715|2010-12-10 13:16:38|Gord Schnell|Re: Hoist and Track System|Brent Yes, I have fired it up! Actually like to run it every couple of weeks to keep it healthy...and test systems. It is nice having the engine under to floor....I can "fold back" the floor panels" (doors) and sit on the edge, feet dangling in the engine bay, and work on virtually all parts of the system. I made the PH opening large enough to handle the engine, so it's pretty easy to remove from the boat, as well. On 9-Dec-10, at 9:15 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > Great innovation. So easy to do when in the bare steel stage. > For the 31 and 36 , lowering it thru the main hatch puts it right on > the mounts. > Your rig is great for an engine under tyhe floor. > Have you fired up the VW yet? > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > wrote: > > > > I posted some photos of a hoist and track system I developed for > > removing my engine (for rebuild). Thought some of you might be > > interested in building one. It's also helpful for batteries and > cargo, > > especially if you have no help available. It has allowed me to > remove > > and reinstall my engine/transmission and a full battery bank > > singlehanded. > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/2002212211/pic/list?mode=slide&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24727|9779|2010-12-10 13:23:59|GP|Re: Composting head|....All kidding aside, these composting heads work very well. I will not be going back to pump and flush any time soon. Odour has not been a continuous problem. I do think the charcoal idea has some merrit particularly if you are tied up dockside... Gary --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > We were at Tree Island the only two boats there at the time. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > > > Oh yeah... I do recollect that day... you were testing your home built one and emptied the harbour. Perhaps you should try anchoring again downwind as I now use Charmin (charcoal flavour). > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > Gary > > > I've been downwind of yours in a dinghy. Definitely a bit of odour. > > > An icecream bucket or tupper ware container, full of activated charcoal, with a hole in one end, over the vent, and another hole in the other end, for an outlet will let one know if the principle works or not, cheaply and quickly. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > > > > > > > I also have a composting unit AirHead. My exhaust hose exits through the cabin where it meets the cockpit seat tucked right into the corner of the cockpit seat and the coaming and runs along the side of the cockpit coaming all the way to a stern scupper then goes right angles straight down to about 2 feet above the waterline. It is completely out of the way and no stack is required. Last summer I had two 260lb heavy weights sailing with me packing away a lot of groceries... not a single whiff of ordour by this method. Maybe the vent being 2 ft from sea level has some dispersement effect. > > > > > > > > ....(charcoal underwear???)... > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > After a fresh dump, there is a bit of smell comming out of my composter vent.As it is 9 ft above the deck , I have rarely noticed it. > > > > > On CBC radio recently, I heard a story about the "Marriage saver blanket." It is filled with activated charcoal , so when someone farts in it , the smell is absorbed by the activated charcoal, and not a whiff escapes. Those who used it swore by it ( not at it). As activated charcoal is available at aquarium supplies and elsewere , and not expensive by any stretch of the imagination, it wouldn't take too much effort to experiment with such a filtre on the vent of a composter, or holding tank for that matter. It wouldn't be too hard to make the charcoal easy and conveninet to replace from time to time. This may be an extremely simple solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | 24728|24715|2010-12-10 13:42:32|Gord Schnell|Re: Hoist and Track System|Your more than welcome, Doug. The sharing is what makes this boat building process possible. I've benefited from so many others' posts. Gord On 9-Dec-10, at 10:52 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > Nice. Thanks for sharing that. > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > ________________________________ > From: Gord Schnell > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, December 9, 2010 10:39:42 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Hoist and Track System > > I posted some photos of a hoist and track system I developed for > removing my engine (for rebuild). Thought some of you might be > interested in building one. It's also helpful for batteries and cargo, > especially if you have no help available. It has allowed me to remove > and reinstall my engine/transmission and a full battery bank > singlehanded. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/photos/album/2002212211/pic/list?mode=slide&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24729|24715|2010-12-10 14:02:42|Doug Jackson|First attempt at a 1/8th scale model.|This is our first attempt at a 1/8th scale model of our boat. Your input is appreciated. We think to much material was removed with the darts. http://www.submarineboat.com/origami_hull.htm#First_Attempt Thanks Doug ArgonautJr.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24730|24715|2010-12-10 15:23:08|wild_explorer|Re: First attempt at a 1/8th scale model.|Doug, Your web-site is very informative. However, video will not load at all for some reasons (may be firewall setup does not allow it). Do you have a link for pictures? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > This is our first attempt at a 1/8th scale model of our boat. Your input is > appreciated. We think to much material was removed with the darts. > > http://www.submarineboat.com/origami_hull.htm#First_Attempt > > Thanks > Doug > ArgonautJr.com | 24731|9779|2010-12-10 15:28:56|brentswain38|Re: Composting head|I haven't heard of anyone who has gone for the composter, and then gone back to a traditional head. All users have been extremely happy with them. A deck level vent works OK, as long as you are moored by the bow, in summer, when things compost rapidly. With a tail wind in winter, a higher vent becomes important, and the charcoal filtre could be an asset. I've had no problems, once I raised the vent above head level, but the charcoal filtre may make that uneccessary. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > ....All kidding aside, these composting heads work very well. I will not be going back to pump and flush any time soon. Odour has not been a continuous problem. I do think the charcoal idea has some merrit particularly if you are tied up dockside... > > Gary > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > We were at Tree Island the only two boats there at the time. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > > > > > Oh yeah... I do recollect that day... you were testing your home built one and emptied the harbour. Perhaps you should try anchoring again downwind as I now use Charmin (charcoal flavour). > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > Gary > > > > I've been downwind of yours in a dinghy. Definitely a bit of odour. > > > > An icecream bucket or tupper ware container, full of activated charcoal, with a hole in one end, over the vent, and another hole in the other end, for an outlet will let one know if the principle works or not, cheaply and quickly. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I also have a composting unit AirHead. My exhaust hose exits through the cabin where it meets the cockpit seat tucked right into the corner of the cockpit seat and the coaming and runs along the side of the cockpit coaming all the way to a stern scupper then goes right angles straight down to about 2 feet above the waterline. It is completely out of the way and no stack is required. Last summer I had two 260lb heavy weights sailing with me packing away a lot of groceries... not a single whiff of ordour by this method. Maybe the vent being 2 ft from sea level has some dispersement effect. > > > > > > > > > > ....(charcoal underwear???)... > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > After a fresh dump, there is a bit of smell comming out of my composter vent.As it is 9 ft above the deck , I have rarely noticed it. > > > > > > On CBC radio recently, I heard a story about the "Marriage saver blanket." It is filled with activated charcoal , so when someone farts in it , the smell is absorbed by the activated charcoal, and not a whiff escapes. Those who used it swore by it ( not at it). As activated charcoal is available at aquarium supplies and elsewere , and not expensive by any stretch of the imagination, it wouldn't take too much effort to experiment with such a filtre on the vent of a composter, or holding tank for that matter. It wouldn't be too hard to make the charcoal easy and conveninet to replace from time to time. This may be an extremely simple solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | 24732|24715|2010-12-10 15:51:02|brentswain38|Re: First attempt at a 1/8th scale model.|Interesting video. To stop those plates from overiding each other, I weld a couple of flat bars on end to either plate on the edges of them, before pulling them together. . That way there is no way they can overide each other, and you don't have to pry them apart. For the bottom transverse seam, I only cut one side and mark the other, while leaving it long. Then, after it is pulled together, I cut the other one parallel to the line. When pulling two edges together , like the centreline, the more camber in the edge, the easier it is to pull together, and extra 3/4 of an inch of camber in the edge makes a huge difference, and would add a bit of rocker in the centreline . Don't overdo it, or you will end up with a lot of rocker , changing the displacement, etc. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > This is our first attempt at a 1/8th scale model of our boat. Your input is > appreciated. We think to much material was removed with the darts. > > http://www.submarineboat.com/origami_hull.htm#First_Attempt > > Thanks > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24733|24715|2010-12-10 15:52:21|Doug Jackson|Re: First attempt at a 1/8th scale model.|It's on YouTube so it likely is a firewall issue. But here are some photos, if flickr is not blocked too. :) http://www.flickr.com/photos/44325988@N04/ Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, December 10, 2010 2:23:06 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: First attempt at a 1/8th scale model. Doug, Your web-site is very informative. However, video will not load at all for some reasons (may be firewall setup does not allow it). Do you have a link for pictures? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > This is our first attempt at a 1/8th scale model of our boat. Your input is > appreciated. We think to much material was removed with the darts. > > http://www.submarineboat.com/origami_hull.htm#First_Attempt > > Thanks > Doug > ArgonautJr.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24734|24715|2010-12-10 15:53:41|brentswain38|Re: First attempt at a 1/8th scale model.|Scoring the plate half way thru with a zipcut, for 6 inches beyond the end of the cuts, lets it bend a bit , making less of a hump in the transition from chine to conic end. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > This is our first attempt at a 1/8th scale model of our boat. Your input is > appreciated. We think to much material was removed with the darts. > > http://www.submarineboat.com/origami_hull.htm#First_Attempt > > Thanks > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24735|24715|2010-12-10 16:06:44|Doug Jackson|Re: First attempt at a 1/8th scale model.|Hello Brent I get the first two points. I forgot you did that trick with the flat bar in Alex's video. By "more camber", do you mean the keel edge of each half should have a slight outward arc? And too much arc creates a keel that is more "rocker" than flat? Thanks Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, December 10, 2010 2:50:53 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: First attempt at a 1/8th scale model. Interesting video. To stop those plates from overiding each other, I weld a couple of flat bars on end to either plate on the edges of them, before pulling them together. . That way there is no way they can overide each other, and you don't have to pry them apart. For the bottom transverse seam, I only cut one side and mark the other, while leaving it long. Then, after it is pulled together, I cut the other one parallel to the line. When pulling two edges together , like the centreline, the more camber in the edge, the easier it is to pull together, and extra 3/4 of an inch of camber in the edge makes a huge difference, and would add a bit of rocker in the centreline . Don't overdo it, or you will end up with a lot of rocker , changing the displacement, etc. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > This is our first attempt at a 1/8th scale model of our boat. Your input is > appreciated. We think to much material was removed with the darts. > > http://www.submarineboat.com/origami_hull.htm#First_Attempt > > Thanks > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24736|24715|2010-12-10 16:09:58|wild_explorer|Re: First attempt at a 1/8th scale model.|Thanks! Yep, YouTube is blocked by firewall. Luckily Flickr is not. Very nice pictures. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > It's on YouTube so it likely is a firewall issue. > > But here are some photos, if flickr is not blocked too. :) > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/44325988@N04/ > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com | 24737|9779|2010-12-10 17:24:33|Ben Okopnik|Re: Composting head|On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 05:07:29PM -0000, scott wrote: > > The rotomolded plastic acts as if it is a nonstick material so far in > our experience. Ben is using the same model and has several years > experience so he could probably give a better long term usage report. I find that the head can get just a little smelly if you don't pay careful attention to the amount of peat that you have in it, so I've shifted over to starting with a thin layer of peat in the bottom and adding a cup of it every time I take a dump. That automates the process so you don't have to think about it. I've also taken the advice of the NH company owner, and rather than dumping the head every time (you have to wrestle the somewhat bulky container through the boat and out into the cockpit, which could be messy if you misstep), I scoop it out - a $4 non-stick scoop from a pet store is really useful here - and dump that. That's about a 5-minute job instead of a 1/2 hour dismount/disassemble/clean up/reassemble/remount process. I also do an external wipedown with a bit of Clorox at that point, which keeps it all nicely clean, bright, and sanitary. By the way, there's a certain breed of tiny flies along the East Coast that like to live in this stuff - I've had them start up in there twice in the past couple of years. Two cups of bleach dumped in, plus a good stirring with the agitator takes care of them. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24738|9779|2010-12-11 11:21:37|rhko47|Re: Composting head|In the files section there is a picture of the Nonolet toilet. Looking at http://www.de12ambachten.nl/eng-greentech/07-12%20diynonolet.html How to make a DIY Nonolet, this system looks easier for DIY construction than an Airhead/Nature's Head type of system, has no moving parts, and uses simple, readily available supplies (plastic bags, biodegradable if you want, and paper) and produces a smaller volume of waste to dispose of (compressed dry non-smelling feces and paper, no peat). Does anyone have any experience with this system? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary" wrote: > > http://www.ssca.org/sscabb/index.php?action=vthread&forum=10&topic=543 > > The above has some positive feedback on the AirHead.com toilet. > Problem is the expense for this product. Anyone come up with something > workable? I hear there is a Mexican product that could at least > provide a good mold as a base to duplicate the air head product that > seems to work. I will dig around for this Mexican composting head as > I understand it is under $300 but does not have a pee separator. > > Gary > | 24739|24523|2010-12-11 13:16:45|jhess314|Re: Cable Anchor Rode|Paul, I've occasionally used a prusik knot in conjunction with rock climbing rope. The loop of rope that the prusik knot was made from was always a bit smaller diameter than the main rope. What size line are you using for your prusik knot loop to tie around a 1/4" or 3/8" wire line, what size line is your snubber, and how heavy is your boat? Did you ever have problems with the prusik knot line either slipping on the wire anchor rode, or being cut by the wire cable, particularly in a strong blow? Best, John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > I have a single length of cable and use a rolling hitch (Prusik knot) to > tie a snubber onto the cable. I use a loop of old line and then attach > the snubber to the tied loop. It doesn't slip if you use about 6 turns, > even when the cable has been greased. > > When tied to a spare halyard, a Prusik knot is also handy when climbing > the mast as a quick and easy jamming knot for safety or when used as an > ascender. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prusik_knot > > Cheers, Paul > | 24740|24740|2010-12-11 13:23:35|jhess314|Open Bow|In many (all?) of the origami boats that I've seen photos of the topside plates are not brought together during construction. The resulting gap is filled with a section of pipe. Is there either a hydrodynamic reason or a construction reason for not bringing the two hull sections together to form a sharp stem? John| 24741|24741|2010-12-11 13:36:15|Don & Karina|Re: Composting head-small flies|Hi all, I don't post all that often as we live in Manitoba and only charter but maybe someday. Anyway, we have used our composting toilet at our cottage for 15+ years and we had the small fly problem once. What we used was diatomaceous earth. It's sold under several brand names wherever you would buy garden supplies. It will only have diatomaceous earth as an ingredient. From what I understand diatomaceous earth is very fine natural glass. What it does is grinds up the fly larvae when they are in the compost. The stuff looks like fine flour and you just squeeze in a puff from the container once in a while. I do it maybe three times in about four months. Haven't had a problem with flies or any bugs since. It's cheap, natural and non-polluting. Hope this helps. Don B. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24742|24740|2010-12-11 14:25:16|haidan|Re: Open Bow|do you mean the rise of the bow? that is brought together to a point people just tend to put a pipe or a piece of stainless flat bar there to prevent wear. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > In many (all?) of the origami boats that I've seen photos of the topside plates are not brought together during construction. The resulting gap is filled with a section of pipe. Is there either a hydrodynamic reason or a construction reason for not bringing the two hull sections together to form a sharp stem? > > John > | 24743|24740|2010-12-11 16:11:46|Kim|Re: Open Bow|Hi John ... The hull plates are eventually bought together to form a (very) sharp stem. See this photo of the bow of my boat: http://x.co/LDEV During construction, when the 2 hull-halves are being pulled together, the bow is left open until the rest of the centerline is joined and the transom in in. Then the bow is pulled together and the stem welded shut. Apparently that construction sequence helps the hull take the correct shape. Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > In many (all?) of the origami boats that I've seen photos of the topside plates are not brought together during construction. The resulting gap is filled with a section of pipe. Is there either a hydrodynamic reason or a construction reason for not bringing the two hull sections together to form a sharp stem? > > John _______________________________________ | 24744|24523|2010-12-11 16:15:06|Paul Wilson|Re: Cable Anchor Rode|John, I think you are right, the Prusik loop should be the same or slightly smaller diameter than the wire cable. I have been using the inner core from an old 1/2 inch jib sheet for several years on the 3/8 inch wire. It never slips if you use enough wraps. I have used a Prusik using small 1/4 inch dacron line in the past. When I used 1/4 inch wire, it was necessary to use the 1/4 inch line to prevent slippage, particularly if the wire was freshly greased up. I expected it to break with the snubber I use, but it never did. I think this is due to the large amount of stretch in the snubber. I like to keep the snubber at least 10 feet long and it is 5/8 inch three strand nylon line attached to the Prusik loop with a hook. I use 75 feet of 3/8 inch chain on the end of the wire so sometimes in shallow water I go direct to the chain with the hook. A 1/2 inch snubber would probably be fine. I have the Origami 36 so it is about 10 tons. Cheers, Paul On 12/12/2010 7:16 AM, jhess314 wrote: > > Paul, > > I've occasionally used a prusik knot in conjunction with rock climbing > rope. The loop of rope that the prusik knot was made from was always a > bit smaller diameter than the main rope. > > What size line are you using for your prusik knot loop to tie around a > 1/4" or 3/8" wire line, what size line is your snubber, and how heavy > is your boat? Did you ever have problems with the prusik knot line > either slipping on the wire anchor rode, or being cut by the wire > cable, particularly in a strong blow? > > Best, > John > > | 24745|24715|2010-12-11 16:56:54|brentswain38|Re: First attempt at a 1/8th scale model.|Any two edges are easier to pull together if they are cambered outward more. I was refering to the centreline. One guy cambered his centreline inward, which made it impossible to pull together, until he rechecked the plans, then had to weld a full length of add on, then re cut it with the outward camber refered to in the drawings. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Hello Brent > > I get the first two points. I forgot you did that trick with the flat bar in > Alex's video. > > By "more camber", do you mean the keel edge of each half should have a slight > outward arc? And too much arc creates a keel that is more "rocker" than flat? > > > > Thanks > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: brentswain38 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Fri, December 10, 2010 2:50:53 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: First attempt at a 1/8th scale model. > > > Interesting video. > To stop those plates from overiding each other, I weld a couple of flat bars on > end to either plate on the edges of them, before pulling them together. . That > way there is no way they can overide each other, and you don't have to pry them > apart. > For the bottom transverse seam, I only cut one side and mark the other, while > leaving it long. Then, after it is pulled together, I cut the other one parallel > to the line. > When pulling two edges together , like the centreline, the more camber in the > edge, the easier it is to pull together, and extra 3/4 of an inch of camber in > the edge makes a huge difference, and would add a bit of rocker in the > centreline . Don't overdo it, or you will end up with a lot of rocker , changing > the displacement, etc. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > This is our first attempt at a 1/8th scale model of our boat. Your input is > > appreciated. We think to much material was removed with the darts. > > > > http://www.submarineboat.com/origami_hull.htm#First_Attempt > > > > Thanks > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24746|24523|2010-12-11 17:01:46|brentswain38|Re: Cable Anchor Rode|I use a rolling hitch for my bosuns chair. Seems to work better there. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > Paul, > > I've occasionally used a prusik knot in conjunction with rock climbing rope. The loop of rope that the prusik knot was made from was always a bit smaller diameter than the main rope. > > What size line are you using for your prusik knot loop to tie around a 1/4" or 3/8" wire line, what size line is your snubber, and how heavy is your boat? Did you ever have problems with the prusik knot line either slipping on the wire anchor rode, or being cut by the wire cable, particularly in a strong blow? > > Best, > John > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > I have a single length of cable and use a rolling hitch (Prusik knot) to > > tie a snubber onto the cable. I use a loop of old line and then attach > > the snubber to the tied loop. It doesn't slip if you use about 6 turns, > > even when the cable has been greased. > > > > When tied to a spare halyard, a Prusik knot is also handy when climbing > > the mast as a quick and easy jamming knot for safety or when used as an > > ascender. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prusik_knot > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > | 24747|24740|2010-12-11 17:04:32|brentswain38|Re: Open Bow|All mine use a sharp stem with the plates brought together. There is no advantage to using a pipe there, but several disadvantages. A pipe is easier to dent if you hit something really hard but almost impsossible with a sharp stem. A pipe is a lot more work, for zero advantage. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > In many (all?) of the origami boats that I've seen photos of the topside plates are not brought together during construction. The resulting gap is filled with a section of pipe. Is there either a hydrodynamic reason or a construction reason for not bringing the two hull sections together to form a sharp stem? > > John > | 24748|24715|2010-12-11 17:50:17|Doug Jackson|Re: First attempt at a 1/8th scale model.|Good deal. Thanks for the clarification. Dam glad were building a model first. :) Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, December 11, 2010 3:56:53 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: First attempt at a 1/8th scale model. Any two edges are easier to pull together if they are cambered outward more. I was refering to the centreline. One guy cambered his centreline inward, which made it impossible to pull together, until he rechecked the plans, then had to weld a full length of add on, then re cut it with the outward camber refered to in the drawings. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Hello Brent > > I get the first two points. I forgot you did that trick with the flat bar in > Alex's video. > > By "more camber", do you mean the keel edge of each half should have a slight > outward arc? And too much arc creates a keel that is more "rocker" than flat? > > > > Thanks > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: brentswain38 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Fri, December 10, 2010 2:50:53 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: First attempt at a 1/8th scale model. > > > Interesting video. > To stop those plates from overiding each other, I weld a couple of flat bars on > > end to either plate on the edges of them, before pulling them together. . That > way there is no way they can overide each other, and you don't have to pry them > > apart. > For the bottom transverse seam, I only cut one side and mark the other, while > leaving it long. Then, after it is pulled together, I cut the other one >parallel > > to the line. > When pulling two edges together , like the centreline, the more camber in the > edge, the easier it is to pull together, and extra 3/4 of an inch of camber in > the edge makes a huge difference, and would add a bit of rocker in the > centreline . Don't overdo it, or you will end up with a lot of rocker , >changing > > the displacement, etc. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > This is our first attempt at a 1/8th scale model of our boat. Your input is > > appreciated. We think to much material was removed with the darts. > > > > http://www.submarineboat.com/origami_hull.htm#First_Attempt > > > > Thanks > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24749|24749|2010-12-12 02:44:31|Ben Okopnik|Safety gadget for a table saw...|...one of the coolest safety devices ever. Video of the inventor shoving his finger into a saw spinning about 4000 RPM and coming off without a scratch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3mzhvMgrLE&NR=1 -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24750|24749|2010-12-12 10:12:18|scott|Re: Safety gadget for a table saw...|I've seen this before with just the hotdog.. very impressive... wish I could afford one. If I was a business using table saws on a regular basis it would be a for shure purchase. :) scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > ...one of the coolest safety devices ever. Video of the inventor shoving > his finger into a saw spinning about 4000 RPM and coming off without a > scratch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3mzhvMgrLE&NR=1 > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              443-250-7895      end_of_the_skype_highlighting http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24751|24749|2010-12-12 12:20:19|Ben Okopnik|Re: Safety gadget for a table saw...|On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 03:12:06PM -0000, scott wrote: > > I've seen this before with just the hotdog.. very impressive... wish I > could afford one. If I was a business using table saws on a regular > basis it would be a for shure purchase. :) $70 is what they're asking for one. Not too bad for something that can prevent an accident that could cost you thousands (not to mention losing a body part, or maybe your life.) If I had a table saw at all, I'd definitely be grabbing one of these. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24752|24749|2010-12-12 12:36:34|John Fuller|Re: Safety gadget for a table saw...|I think you'll find that it costs way more, maybe add a couple of zeros. We use one at work, and tripping the brake alone costs several hundred dollars for replacement parts, but worth every penny. I'm pretty sure they are now mandatory in BC industry. _____ From: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com [mailto:origamiboats@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ben Okopnik Sent: December 12, 2010 9:20 AM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Safety gadget for a table saw... On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 03:12:06PM -0000, scott wrote: > > I've seen this before with just the hotdog.. very impressive... wish I > could afford one. If I was a business using table saws on a regular > basis it would be a for shure purchase. :) $70 is what they're asking for one. Not too bad for something that can prevent an accident that could cost you thousands (not to mention losing a body part, or maybe your life.) If I had a table saw at all, I'd definitely be grabbing one of these. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24753|24749|2010-12-12 12:57:09|j fisher|Re: Safety gadget for a table saw...|$70 is only the cost of a replacement cartridge, plus the blade that was destroyed and it only comes on a saw stop saw. I think the saws are $1k+. Dont get me wrong, it is a great idea. Just make sure you turn it off if you cut wet wood as that will trip the sensor. On 12/13/10, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 03:12:06PM -0000, scott wrote: >> >> I've seen this before with just the hotdog.. very impressive... wish I >> could afford one. If I was a business using table saws on a regular >> basis it would be a for shure purchase. :) > > $70 is what they're asking for one. Not too bad for something that can > prevent an accident that could cost you thousands (not to mention losing > a body part, or maybe your life.) If I had a table saw at all, I'd > definitely be grabbing one of these. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24754|24749|2010-12-12 13:03:33|Ben Okopnik|Re: Safety gadget for a table saw...|On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 09:36:32AM -0800, John Fuller wrote: > I think you'll find that it costs way more, maybe add a couple of zeros. Awww, man - that's kinda disappointing. I thought it would be just a retrofit system. Looking around, I found this article: http://www.finehomebuilding.com/how-to/articles/sawstop-revisited.aspx According to the manufacturer, he was originally trying to sell it as a retrofit kit (cost: $100-$150), but saw manufacturers weren't interested: they weren't the ones paying the costs for chopped off fingers. So he started producing his own saws/cabinets. Google lists a number of them, one model as low as $1600. On the SawStop site, they're claiming a replacement brake cartridge cost of $80. http://www.sawstop.com/media/W184JOp46-p51.pdf > I'm pretty sure they are now mandatory in BC industry. Y'know, I'm usually not real hyped on government sticking their noses into everything - but this is one of the places where it sounds like they're doing what they should be. Good for the people in BC, then. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24755|24749|2010-12-12 13:06:28|Ben Okopnik|Re: Safety gadget for a table saw...|On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 01:57:06AM +0800, j fisher wrote: > $70 is only the cost of a replacement cartridge, plus the blade that > was destroyed and it only comes on a saw stop saw. I think the saws > are $1k+. Dont get me wrong, it is a great idea. Just make sure you > turn it off if you cut wet wood as that will trip the sensor. Yeah, they mentioned that in one of the videos; it comes with a key that puts it in a standby mode. The thing has a built-in tester that shows you whether the material you're cutting will trip the brake or not (a light comes on.) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24756|24756|2010-12-12 13:19:39|ANDREW AIREY|Composting Head|Back in my misspent youth when we had a pan toilet - definitely non composting - at the top of the yard which the council used to empty once a week,we used to use a sprinkling of lime to keep the smell down.All information on composting toilets gratefully received because I've got to replace a rickety marine toilet in the not too dim and distant. cheers Andy Airey| 24757|24756|2010-12-12 14:07:59|Ben Okopnik|Re: Composting Head|On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 06:19:30PM +0000, ANDREW AIREY wrote: > Back in my misspent youth when we had a pan toilet - definitely non > composting - at the top of the yard which the council used to empty > once a week,we used to use a sprinkling of lime to keep the smell > down.All information on composting toilets gratefully received because > I've got to replace a rickety marine toilet in the not too dim and > distant. The concept itself is terrific - after several years of using one, I can say with some certainty that it's as good and simple of a system as can be. If I didn't care about what it looked like, I'd put it together like Brent did, for just a couple of bucks plus a pot lid and be done with it. Since I do care, somewhat at least, and since I'm *really* weak on making things look good (I'm a good engineer, but I'm awful at fit and finish type of stuff), and since I happen to make pretty decent money, I went ahead and spent $800 or so on a pre-made unit (Nature's Head.) Other than the minor criticisms that I've mentioned here and on my website (http://okopnik.com/head.html), it's an excellent unit. I don't think I'll ever use anything else on a boat that I own, unless someone comes out with a cheaper unit of the same or better quality. PROS: 1) I was able to close off two through hulls (that's a big safety feature in my mind) and get rid of a sewage pump and somewhat smelly hoses (not that I had to do it often, but servicing these was not pleasant.) 2) I also don't have to worry about the Coast Guard or the "water Nazis" in Florida or wherever hassling me - another huge "peace of mind" improvement. 3) Last of all, less stuff in the system - and thus less cost, time, and effort for replacement and maintenance - is also a good thing. CONS: 1) You have to stay aware of the level in the urine container. That's possibly the most annoying thing of all, because overfilling it is definitely an unpleasant thing to handle (although not as bad as it could be, thanks to the NH design: 99% of the spill is split between the solids compartment and the case around the container.) Having a flashlight nearby and checking regularly is definitely a good thing. 2) You have to dump the containers. Whether you take them ashore, or just wait for darkness and do it over the side, it's still not a fun chore. I'm very glad that I rigged up pressure salt water a few months before buying the NH... Also, doing it the way that the owner of NH suggested (instead of dumping the whole unit, just bucket it out) makes handling the solids much quicker and simpler. 3) You have to remember to keep a stock of peat on board. That's not hard - a 3 cubic yard bag (HUGE!!!) costs $10, and a third of it, which is all I was able to stow away in my lockers, kept me going for over two years, including the "getting used to it" phase, where I was using twice or three times more than necessary. I portion it out into two-gallon Ziploc bags, toss a disposable plastic cup into the bag that I'm using, and all is well. A usage note: once in a while, you miss the solids compartment opening by a bit when you take a dump, so I find it useful to have a little spray bottle at hand to wash things off. Since I have it, I've gotten into the habit of using it every single time - and I've decided that I like the idea of a little disinfectant (maybe 1/2 - 1 ounce in a 16-oz bottle) mixed in with it. I've used PineSol, Clorox, etc., which all work fine - but when I was at a Home Depot a few months back, I found a gallon of industrial disinfectant for $13 (I don't recall the name, but the stuff smells like eucalyptus) - and they threw in a second gallon for free. I think that'll probably last the rest of my life. :) -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24758|24758|2010-12-12 23:34:52|Kim|Hole in the hull?|Hello everyone ... I know that many Brent boats have been build using wheel-abraded, pre-primed sheets of steel, and consequently sandblasting the interior after construction hasn't been necessary. Unfortunately, buying steel prepared this way just isn't an option here. Instead, I'll have to sandblast both the interior and exterior when all the welding is finished and its ready for painting. However, I very definitely wont try to do the sandblasting myself - instead, I'll hire a specialist sandblaster with a big rig who will hopefully be able to do the job pretty quickly. For those of you who also had to sandblast everything prior to painting, my question is this: when sandblasting the interior, how did you get the used sandblasting sand out of the hull? Whatever method you used to get it out, I assume it had to be a very fast and efficient procedure, as getting the first coat of primer on should happen ASAP after blasting, right? And I assume you wouldn't want to be painting over any grains of sand left behind? Did you use some sort of giant vacuum cleaner to get the sand out? Or is it best to cut a hole in the bottom of the hull and try to manually sweep it all out? If you cut a hole in the bottom of the hull, how big was the hole? Was it right on the centerline? Or off to one side a bit? How did you later cover the hole: with an overlapping plate, or a flush insert piece? If an overlapping cover plate, did you put it on the exterior or interior? If a flush insert piece, was it tricky to weld back in? I'm still many months away from putting the last weld on my boat, so it wont be ready for sandblasting anytime soon. But if I have to cut a hole in the bottom of the hull to get the sandblasting sand out, then I may as well cut it out now, as that will make it easier to sweep out leaves and other stuff that falls into the hull. Sorry for all the questions! But I've never been involved with sandblasting anything this big before, so any advice would be very much appreciated! Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ____________________________________________| 24759|24758|2010-12-13 00:03:58|Matt Malone|Re: Hole in the hull?|Hi Kim, A guess ? The outside is way easier to sandblast than the inside. Ask them to do all of the outside, and then the lowest parts in the inside. If the lowest parts of the interior are sandblasted first and one cleans out the sand manually, there will not be too much sand inside because it is a small area. Then one can prime the lowest areas (and the outside). Then the sandblaster might return to blast everything else on the inside -- the inside is a longer, trickier job, lots of corners and such, will take longer than the outside anyway. Then sweep, vacuum and airspray toward the low area that is already done and paint everything else. After the paint is dry, then vacuum out the bulk of the sand from the low area at your convenience. How is that for an idea ? I hate it idea of making a hole. If you do make a hole, you will just have to clean, weld, clean and prime the hole later. Since all of the welding I have done has been joining members, not plate stuff, I keep my grinder, wire wheel and primer can with me as I weld. Before it is even cool, I am cleaning the welds, and when it is merely warm, I prime it. I finish the welds as I go. No time for rust to start. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: kimdxx@... Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 04:34:50 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Hole in the hull? Hello everyone ... I know that many Brent boats have been build using wheel-abraded, pre-primed sheets of steel, and consequently sandblasting the interior after construction hasn't been necessary. Unfortunately, buying steel prepared this way just isn't an option here. Instead, I'll have to sandblast both the interior and exterior when all the welding is finished and its ready for painting. However, I very definitely wont try to do the sandblasting myself - instead, I'll hire a specialist sandblaster with a big rig who will hopefully be able to do the job pretty quickly. For those of you who also had to sandblast everything prior to painting, my question is this: when sandblasting the interior, how did you get the used sandblasting sand out of the hull? Whatever method you used to get it out, I assume it had to be a very fast and efficient procedure, as getting the first coat of primer on should happen ASAP after blasting, right? And I assume you wouldn't want to be painting over any grains of sand left behind? Did you use some sort of giant vacuum cleaner to get the sand out? Or is it best to cut a hole in the bottom of the hull and try to manually sweep it all out? If you cut a hole in the bottom of the hull, how big was the hole? Was it right on the centerline? Or off to one side a bit? How did you later cover the hole: with an overlapping plate, or a flush insert piece? If an overlapping cover plate, did you put it on the exterior or interior? If a flush insert piece, was it tricky to weld back in? I'm still many months away from putting the last weld on my boat, so it wont be ready for sandblasting anytime soon. But if I have to cut a hole in the bottom of the hull to get the sandblasting sand out, then I may as well cut it out now, as that will make it easier to sweep out leaves and other stuff that falls into the hull. Sorry for all the questions! But I've never been involved with sandblasting anything this big before, so any advice would be very much appreciated! Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24760|24758|2010-12-13 03:27:40|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Hole in the hull?|I believe Brent recommends hole in hull, and many have found it useful. It is also easy to pass stuff, light electricity through the hull during teh build. No personal experience, but the hole seeems to me simple. Welding the whole closed is trivial to anyone who can build a hull ;) Good luck, h-| 24761|24758|2010-12-13 04:12:01|j fisher|Re: Hole in the hull?|I have the same problem here, no preprimed steel. Personally I was planning on blasting and priming the inside before pulling the halves together and after the stringers were welded on. Then building from there as if it was preprimed. That way it is like blasting the outside. Cleanup and working conditions should be much easier. On 12/13/10, Matt Malone wrote: > > > Hi Kim, > > A guess ? The outside is way easier to sandblast than the inside. Ask them > to do all of the outside, and then the lowest parts in the inside. If the > lowest parts of the interior are sandblasted first and one cleans out the > sand manually, there will not be too much sand inside because it is a small > area. Then one can prime the lowest areas (and the outside). Then the > sandblaster might return to blast everything else on the inside -- the > inside is a longer, trickier job, lots of corners and such, will take longer > than the outside anyway. Then sweep, vacuum and airspray toward the low > area that is already done and paint everything else. After the paint is > dry, then vacuum out the bulk of the sand from the low area at your > convenience. How is that for an idea ? I hate it idea of making a hole. > If you do make a hole, you will just have to clean, weld, clean and prime > the hole later. > > Since all of the welding I have done has been joining members, not plate > stuff, I keep my grinder, wire wheel and primer can with me as I weld. > Before it is even cool, I am cleaning the welds, and when it is merely warm, > I prime it. I finish the welds as I go. No time for rust to start. > > Matt > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: kimdxx@... > Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 04:34:50 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Hole in the hull? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello everyone ... > > > > I know that many Brent boats have been build using wheel-abraded, pre-primed > sheets of steel, and consequently sandblasting the interior after > construction hasn't been necessary. Unfortunately, buying steel prepared > this way just isn't an option here. > > > > Instead, I'll have to sandblast both the interior and exterior when all the > welding is finished and its ready for painting. However, I very definitely > wont try to do the sandblasting myself - instead, I'll hire a specialist > sandblaster with a big rig who will hopefully be able to do the job pretty > quickly. > > > > For those of you who also had to sandblast everything prior to painting, my > question is this: when sandblasting the interior, how did you get the used > sandblasting sand out of the hull? > > > > Whatever method you used to get it out, I assume it had to be a very fast > and efficient procedure, as getting the first coat of primer on should > happen ASAP after blasting, right? And I assume you wouldn't want to be > painting over any grains of sand left behind? > > > > Did you use some sort of giant vacuum cleaner to get the sand out? Or is it > best to cut a hole in the bottom of the hull and try to manually sweep it > all out? > > > > If you cut a hole in the bottom of the hull, how big was the hole? Was it > right on the centerline? Or off to one side a bit? How did you later cover > the hole: with an overlapping plate, or a flush insert piece? If an > overlapping cover plate, did you put it on the exterior or interior? If a > flush insert piece, was it tricky to weld back in? > > > > I'm still many months away from putting the last weld on my boat, so it wont > be ready for sandblasting anytime soon. But if I have to cut a hole in the > bottom of the hull to get the sandblasting sand out, then I may as well cut > it out now, as that will make it easier to sweep out leaves and other stuff > that falls into the hull. > > > > Sorry for all the questions! But I've never been involved with sandblasting > anything this big before, so any advice would be very much appreciated! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > | 24762|24758|2010-12-13 11:00:38|Gord Schnell|Re: Hole in the hull?|Kim I'm doing a 40' and I did sandblast the outside and the inside...and it was a nasty job...but the nastiest part was shoveling the sand into pails and hauling out of the hull. I "invited" friends (now all former friends....eh eh eh) to help me haul it all out of the hull and sweep it all up off the floors, load it back into the delivery bags and vacuum every nook and cranny inside the hull. With all of that, I still run across grains of sand inside the hull, long after painting it. I can't suggest a better way...sorry. Gord On 12-Dec-10, at 8:34 PM, Kim wrote: > > Hello everyone ... > > I know that many Brent boats have been build using wheel-abraded, > pre-primed sheets of steel, and consequently sandblasting the > interior after construction hasn't been necessary. Unfortunately, > buying steel prepared this way just isn't an option here. > > Instead, I'll have to sandblast both the interior and exterior when > all the welding is finished and its ready for painting. However, I > very definitely wont try to do the sandblasting myself - instead, > I'll hire a specialist sandblaster with a big rig who will hopefully > be able to do the job pretty quickly. > > For those of you who also had to sandblast everything prior to > painting, my question is this: when sandblasting the interior, how > did you get the used sandblasting sand out of the hull? > > Whatever method you used to get it out, I assume it had to be a very > fast and efficient procedure, as getting the first coat of primer on > should happen ASAP after blasting, right? And I assume you wouldn't > want to be painting over any grains of sand left behind? > > Did you use some sort of giant vacuum cleaner to get the sand out? > Or is it best to cut a hole in the bottom of the hull and try to > manually sweep it all out? > > If you cut a hole in the bottom of the hull, how big was the hole? > Was it right on the centerline? Or off to one side a bit? How did > you later cover the hole: with an overlapping plate, or a flush > insert piece? If an overlapping cover plate, did you put it on the > exterior or interior? If a flush insert piece, was it tricky to weld > back in? > > I'm still many months away from putting the last weld on my boat, so > it wont be ready for sandblasting anytime soon. But if I have to cut > a hole in the bottom of the hull to get the sandblasting sand out, > then I may as well cut it out now, as that will make it easier to > sweep out leaves and other stuff that falls into the hull. > > Sorry for all the questions! But I've never been involved with > sandblasting anything this big before, so any advice would be very > much appreciated! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ____________________________________________ > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24763|24740|2010-12-13 11:15:49|jhess314|Re: Open Bow|Thanks for all the responses. I misinterpreted the photos I saw with partially open bows. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > All mine use a sharp stem with the plates brought together. There is no advantage to using a pipe there, but several disadvantages. A pipe is easier to dent if you hit something really hard but almost impsossible with a sharp stem. A pipe is a lot more work, for zero advantage. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" wrote: > > > > In many (all?) of the origami boats that I've seen photos of the topside plates are not brought together during construction. The resulting gap is filled with a section of pipe. Is there either a hydrodynamic reason or a construction reason for not bringing the two hull sections together to form a sharp stem? > > > > John > > > | 24764|24523|2010-12-13 11:24:04|jhess314|Re: Cable Anchor Rode|Paul, I am surprised that a loop of 1/4" dacron line for the prusik knot is a good match for a 1/2" or 5/8" nylon snubber. What was the diameter of the core of your 1/2" jib sheet? What type of grease do you use on your wire rope. How do you tell when it is time to grease it? What is the greasing process? How do you keep yourself and the boat clean of the grease and associated dirt? Best, John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > John, > > I think you are right, the Prusik loop should be the same or slightly > smaller diameter than the wire cable. I have been using the inner core > from an old 1/2 inch jib sheet for several years on the 3/8 inch wire. > It never slips if you use enough wraps. I have used a Prusik using > small 1/4 inch dacron line in the past. When I used 1/4 inch wire, it > was necessary to use the 1/4 inch line to prevent slippage, particularly > if the wire was freshly greased up. I expected it to break with the > snubber I use, but it never did. I think this is due to the large > amount of stretch in the snubber. I like to keep the snubber at least > 10 feet long and it is 5/8 inch three strand nylon line attached to the > Prusik loop with a hook. I use 75 feet of 3/8 inch chain on the end of > the wire so sometimes in shallow water I go direct to the chain with the > hook. A 1/2 inch snubber would probably be fine. I have the Origami 36 > so it is about 10 tons. > > Cheers, Paul > > > > On 12/12/2010 7:16 AM, jhess314 wrote: > > > > Paul, > > > > I've occasionally used a prusik knot in conjunction with rock climbing > > rope. The loop of rope that the prusik knot was made from was always a > > bit smaller diameter than the main rope. > > > > What size line are you using for your prusik knot loop to tie around a > > 1/4" or 3/8" wire line, what size line is your snubber, and how heavy > > is your boat? Did you ever have problems with the prusik knot line > > either slipping on the wire anchor rode, or being cut by the wire > > cable, particularly in a strong blow? > > > > Best, > > John > > > > > | 24765|24758|2010-12-13 16:22:23|brentswain38|Re: Hole in the hull?|When I blasted a 36 in Stockton, it had a single keel, the back bottom of which would be extremely hard to get the sand out of, which would have made it almost impossible to do a good blasting job on, as the sand would build up too rapidly to see what you are doing. I cut a 12 inch by 6 inch hole there and blew the sand out as quickly as it accumulated, using the blaster. I also used the blaster to blast the sand from the rest of the hull, out thru the same hole. A 6 by 12 inch hole is all you need, After blasting, you blast the cut out piece , weld it back in flush, then blast the welds. For the 31 , you can simply leave out the small triangular pieces on the back centreline plate, until all the steelwork and blasting is done, and you are ready for blasting and painting. It makes a good place to run electrical cords , cutting torch hose, welding cables, etc thru, and to put all your goodies within easy reach from inside the hull at the start of your day, and to pass them back out at the end of the day, saving you a huge amount of climbing in and out, when you are working alone. Putting it at the low point of the hull, along the centreline is the best place for it. Until then , painting the hull with cheap white paint from the recyclers, makes it a lot cooler to work on in direct hot sunlight. It's like adding air conditioning. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hello everyone ... > > I know that many Brent boats have been build using wheel-abraded, pre-primed sheets of steel, and consequently sandblasting the interior after construction hasn't been necessary. Unfortunately, buying steel prepared this way just isn't an option here. > > Instead, I'll have to sandblast both the interior and exterior when all the welding is finished and its ready for painting. However, I very definitely wont try to do the sandblasting myself - instead, I'll hire a specialist sandblaster with a big rig who will hopefully be able to do the job pretty quickly. > > For those of you who also had to sandblast everything prior to painting, my question is this: when sandblasting the interior, how did you get the used sandblasting sand out of the hull? > > Whatever method you used to get it out, I assume it had to be a very fast and efficient procedure, as getting the first coat of primer on should happen ASAP after blasting, right? And I assume you wouldn't want to be painting over any grains of sand left behind? > > Did you use some sort of giant vacuum cleaner to get the sand out? Or is it best to cut a hole in the bottom of the hull and try to manually sweep it all out? > > If you cut a hole in the bottom of the hull, how big was the hole? Was it right on the centerline? Or off to one side a bit? How did you later cover the hole: with an overlapping plate, or a flush insert piece? If an overlapping cover plate, did you put it on the exterior or interior? If a flush insert piece, was it tricky to weld back in? > > I'm still many months away from putting the last weld on my boat, so it wont be ready for sandblasting anytime soon. But if I have to cut a hole in the bottom of the hull to get the sandblasting sand out, then I may as well cut it out now, as that will make it easier to sweep out leaves and other stuff that falls into the hull. > > Sorry for all the questions! But I've never been involved with sandblasting anything this big before, so any advice would be very much appreciated! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ____________________________________________ > | 24766|24523|2010-12-13 18:57:49|Paul Wilson|Re: Cable Anchor Rode|I am surprised the 1/4 inch line has never broken as well but remember it is doubled up because it is a loop. Maybe the secret is that it is in a snubber so doesn't get shock loading. It has also always been relatively new, good quality dacron. If you are really worried about it, use spectra or dynex. The inner core of the 1/2 inch dacron would be about 3/8 inch. I have always used marine wheel bearing grease for the cable because the special purpose cable greases which are made to penetrate the lay of the cable have always been too hard to find in small quantities and too expensive. I just smear the grease in with my hand. It is a messy job but I have never found an easier way. Once greased it is not as messy on deck as you think since it is normally covered with the chain when underway and once anchored, not disturbed. Cable to chain is a wonderful anchoring system. Much stronger and lighter than chain and works around coral and coral heads where rope to chain is a no no.....I don't understand why more people don't use it. Cheers, Paul On 12/14/2010 5:24 AM, jhess314 wrote: > > Paul, > I am surprised that a loop of 1/4" dacron line for the prusik knot is > a good match for a 1/2" or 5/8" nylon snubber. What was the diameter > of the core of your 1/2" jib sheet? > > What type of grease do you use on your wire rope. How do you tell when > it is time to grease it? What is the greasing process? How do you keep > yourself and the boat clean of the grease and associated dirt? > > Best, > John > > | 24767|24758|2010-12-13 21:11:35|Matt Malone|Re: Hole in the hull?|Brent wrote: >Until then , painting the hull with cheap white paint from the recyclers, makes it a >lot cooler to work on in direct hot sunlight. It's like adding air conditioning. Do not underestimate this. I was working in a steel structure on the Prairies, temperatures went to 58 C in the summer inside it. Air conditioning was impractical so I said, paint it white. The managers did not believe it would work and refused to allow me to try so I got some white paint and rollers and painted it one day without their permission, in about 25 minutes (real aweful job). The temperature was down to 32 C. I told them, look, 58 C is dangerous, I fixed it. If you want you can finish the painting to make it look pretty. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24768|24758|2010-12-14 03:20:46|Kim|Re: Hole in the hull?|Many thanks for your replies Brent, Matt, Gord and Hannu. I think I'll cut a 6" x 12" hole at the lowest point on the centerline. It sounds like that will be the easiest and most efficient way to get the spent sandblasting sand out of the interior. In the meantime the hole will be very useful for passing through cables etc. Hopefully I'll be able to successfully flush-seal the hole again before launching! :-) Until sandblasting day, I like the idea of temporarily painting everything with cheap white paint to keep the temperature of the steel down while I'm building the boat. I think I'll do that too! Summer has just started here, and daily temperatures of 35C to 40C will be pretty common for the next 3 months. Could be I'll be going out to work on the boat just to keep cool! :-) Thanks again. Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ____________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > Hello everyone ... > > I know that many Brent boats have been build using wheel-abraded, pre-primed sheets of steel, and consequently sandblasting the interior after construction hasn't been necessary. Unfortunately, buying steel prepared this way just isn't an option here. > > Instead, I'll have to sandblast both the interior and exterior when all the welding is finished and its ready for painting. However, I very definitely wont try to do the sandblasting myself - instead, I'll hire a specialist sandblaster with a big rig who will hopefully be able to do the job pretty quickly. > > For those of you who also had to sandblast everything prior to painting, my question is this: when sandblasting the interior, how did you get the used sandblasting sand out of the hull? > > Whatever method you used to get it out, I assume it had to be a very fast and efficient procedure, as getting the first coat of primer on should happen ASAP after blasting, right? And I assume you wouldn't want to be painting over any grains of sand left behind? > > Did you use some sort of giant vacuum cleaner to get the sand out? Or is it best to cut a hole in the bottom of the hull and try to manually sweep it all out? > > If you cut a hole in the bottom of the hull, how big was the hole? Was it right on the centerline? Or off to one side a bit? How did you later cover the hole: with an overlapping plate, or a flush insert piece? If an overlapping cover plate, did you put it on the exterior or interior? If a flush insert piece, was it tricky to weld back in? > > I'm still many months away from putting the last weld on my boat, so it wont be ready for sandblasting anytime soon. But if I have to cut a hole in the bottom of the hull to get the sandblasting sand out, then I may as well cut it out now, as that will make it easier to sweep out leaves and other stuff that falls into the hull. > > Sorry for all the questions! But I've never been involved with sandblasting anything this big before, so any advice would be very much appreciated! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > ____________________________________________ | 24769|24758|2010-12-14 14:36:12|jim dorey|Re: Hole in the hull?|Kim wrote: > If you cut a hole in the bottom of the hull, how big was the hole? Was > it right on the centerline? Or off to one side a bit? How did you later > cover the hole: with an overlapping plate, or a flush insert piece? If > an overlapping cover plate, did you put it on the exterior or interior? > If a flush insert piece, was it tricky to weld back in? not having built one, being focused on steam powerplants lately, i'd say, if there's holes for mounting external ballast, that'd be a good candidate.| 24770|24758|2010-12-14 16:30:42|brentswain38|Re: Hole in the hull?|When asked to work on one of two hulls in a yard, in the heat of summer, I insisted the owner paint her white, first. After she was painted white, she felt cool to the toch, but the other one, gray primer , you could fry eggs on. While I worked for Great West Steel in the mid 70's, they bid on a job building a hotel in Ahbu Dhabi. The based their bid on the cost of building the same hotel in Canada. They lost their shirts on the job, as they had to wear fireproof suits on it, and could only work till 11 am then after 3 pm. It was painted with blue primer . Had they asked me, I would have suggested white primer and sun glasses. Would have saved them a fortune. A hole in the bottom of the hull makes passing ballast inside far easier than over the rail. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Brent wrote: > >Until then , painting the hull with cheap white paint from the recyclers, makes it a > >lot cooler to work on in direct hot sunlight. It's like adding air conditioning. > > Do not underestimate this. I was working in a steel structure on the Prairies, temperatures went to 58 C in the summer inside it. Air conditioning was impractical so I said, paint it white. The managers did not believe it would work and refused to allow me to try so I got some white paint and rollers and painted it one day without their permission, in about 25 minutes (real aweful job). The temperature was down to 32 C. I told them, look, 58 C is dangerous, I fixed it. If you want you can finish the painting to make it look pretty. > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24771|24758|2010-12-14 16:33:25|brentswain38|Re: Hole in the hull?|All ballast is internal . Good welds, being 100% the strength of the surrounding metal, there will be no loss of strength from the hole. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, jim dorey wrote: > > Kim wrote: > > > If you cut a hole in the bottom of the hull, how big was the hole? Was > > it right on the centerline? Or off to one side a bit? How did you later > > cover the hole: with an overlapping plate, or a flush insert piece? If > > an overlapping cover plate, did you put it on the exterior or interior? > > If a flush insert piece, was it tricky to weld back in? > > not having built one, being focused on steam powerplants lately, i'd > say, if there's holes for mounting external ballast, that'd be a good > candidate. > | 24772|24756|2010-12-14 21:08:56|SHANE ROTHWELL|Composting Head|Brent,   I think what you are referrign to, from our good friends at Mega-decieve-you Corp, is PHOOD.   Quite distinctly not to be confused with food (you know, that boring stuff that you put in your body for nourishment...)   But hey, wait a miniut, you may have hit on an extremely clever idea!   Don't waste that loveley composted material, it could be recycled it into McPhood, couldn't it?   Just think of it, a worldwide propriatary method that not only shows what the "I'm loving it" bit is really all about, and at the same time saving and recycling all those valuable resourses AND it would drastically improve quality!   Buona' Petit!         Re: Composting head Posted by: "brentswain38" brentswain38@...   brentswain38 Thu Dec 9, 2010 9:12 pm (PST) That was Tree Island . We were the only two boatrs in the area. I rowed alongside and almost puked when I got downwind of your vent. How did you find McDonalds food out there? --- In origamiboats@ yahoogroups. com, "GP" wrote: > > Oh yeah... I do recollect that day... you were testing your home built one and >emptied the harbour. Perhaps you should try anchoring again downwind as I now >use Charmin (charcoal flavour). > | 24773|24756|2010-12-14 21:29:15|scott|Composting Head|Just a note.. We have been using Coir as our composting medium. It sounds a bit more expensive than what Ben is using but it comes in compressed bricks.On brick of it that is 4x6x8 will with the addition of a half gallon of water expand into about 2.5 gallons of composting mix. It is a lot easier to store than the peat if you have space issues. I think we paid about 2 or 3 dollars a brick by buying 20 some bricks at the time off the Internet. we found it hard to find locally. as far as actual use it seems to work good. We put the brick in a trash bag and add water the day before we empty the head. We are looking at some sort of contain we can have next to the head with a scoop though.. If you let this stuff get away from you it gets everywhere :). I've heard that peat moss isn't as messy when adding it to the head. Not that it has been a big issue. I have just learned to be a little more careful with it. scott > > 3) You have to remember to keep a stock of peat on board. That's not > hard - a 3 cubic yard bag (HUGE!!!) costs $10, and a third of it, which > is all I was able to stow away in my lockers, kept me going for over two > years, including the "getting used to it" phase, where I was using twice > or three times more than necessary. I portion it out into two-gallon > Ziploc bags, toss a disposable plastic cup into the bag that I'm using, > and all is well. | 24774|9779|2010-12-14 21:56:41|Ben Okopnik|Re: Composting head|On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 04:21:35PM -0000, rhko47 wrote: > In the files section there is a picture of the Nonolet toilet. Looking > at http://www.de12ambachten.nl/eng-greentech/07-12%20diynonolet.html > How to make a DIY Nonolet, this system looks easier for DIY > construction than an Airhead/Nature's Head type of system, has no > moving parts, and uses simple, readily available supplies (plastic > bags, biodegradable if you want, and paper) and produces a smaller > volume of waste to dispose of (compressed dry non-smelling feces and > paper, no peat). Does anyone have any experience with this system? No experience with it, but I read about it while researching which composting head I should buy. They even have what they call a "marine version" - http://www.de12ambachten.nl/engnonolethow.html However, it's pretty clear that they a) don't understand that boats pitch, and b) they missed the point of the primary school physics demo with the water level in a hose when the ends are held at different levels (the overboard drainage in their boat picture is higher than the top of the Nonolet. :) It's certainly possible that this system would work on a boat - the principle sounds interesting - but I, for one, wouldn't want to discover... um, let's just call them the bugs in their system; finding out that it fails in rough weather just as a three-day-long storm is starting would be a Bad Thing. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24775|24756|2010-12-14 22:08:29|Ben Okopnik|Re: Composting Head|On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 02:29:06AM -0000, scott wrote: > Just a note.. We have been using Coir as our composting medium. The problem that I had with coir is actually two-fold: 1) as you mentioned, it can be hard to find (and sometimes, when you do find it, it's _ridiculously_ expensive - as in $25 for a brick!), and 2) out of 3 bricks of it that I bought - different places, different manufacturers, etc - one of them simply failed to expand. I did everything I could, but ended up taking the remains back to the store (the replacement worked fine.) Also, picking the stuff apart without scattering it everywhere was a bit of a challenge. Unlike you, though, I never did find a hassle-free way to work with the stuff. Having to keep a large basin or bucket around that's full of the stuff while it soaks was a pain - and if you failed to predict when you were going to need it, it turned into a minor emergency. In the end, I just went with peat. The space considerations went away as soon as I subdivided it all into 2-gallon bags: they can be mashed into almost any shape and so can be easily stowed in all kinds of odd corners. Given how many of those there are on a boat, a couple of years' supply is easy to put away - even if you have "no space left". -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24776|24756|2010-12-15 00:01:12|Darren Bos|wet sanding epoxy aluminum|Sometime in the last few years someone mentioned sanding wet epoxy into aluminum in order to avoid an oxidized layer and get a good bond. I've searched the archives but can't seem to find it mentioned. Any information would be appreciated, especially if it has held up well. Darren| 24777|24756|2010-12-15 03:40:54|Kim|Re: wet sanding epoxy aluminum|Hi Darren ... I've done something similar to this on a 35ft ply & timber catamaran I built many years ago. I assume you want to fasten the aluminum to something else using epoxy? (There would be no point in just covering the aluminum with epoxy to "protect" it or something, as the epoxy would suffer UV degradation over time.) Actually, I was trying to fasten steel, not aluminum; but the principles would be the same. What I did was fasten 10mm mild steel plates to the bottom of the cat's mini-keels, to act as "shoes" for the keels. The mini-keels were hollow timber structures, and were heavily glassed on the outside (with epoxy resin). I didn't want to secure the steel shoes with mechanical fasteners, as that would have allowed water into the timber sooner or later. So I simply glued the steel shoes on! I figured that as the timber mini-keels, their glass covering, and the steel shoes, would all be continuously immersed, they would all stay at about the same temperature and so wouldn't experience too much in the way of different rates of expansion/contraction (which I think would definitely otherwise eventually sheer/tear the epoxy join). I was using West System epoxy, and I followed the Gougeon Brothers instructions (in their book: http://x.co/LH4W) on how to do the job. Basically the procedure was: 1) Thoroughly grind the steel back to bare metal. 2) Manually rub mixed (but not thickened) epoxy on to the steel surface using a kitchen scourer or something similar. Keep doing this until your arms ache. Then do it some more! 3) Wait until that layer of epoxy has reached about 80% cure. 4) Then mix another batch of epoxy; but this time thickened to the consistency that you want. Thickly apply that over the top of the first layer. 5) Position the metal against the surface to which you want it to bond, and let all the epoxy fully cure. As the cat hulls were still in a shed upside down on a strongback at that stage, I just rested the epoxy-covered steel shoes in place, and they stayed there under their own weight until the epoxy cured. That was 20 years ago. As far as I know those steel shoes are still in place. Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > > Sometime in the last few years someone mentioned sanding wet epoxy > into aluminum in order to avoid an oxidized layer and get a good > bond. I've searched the archives but can't seem to find it > mentioned. Any information would be appreciated, especially if it > has held up well. > > Darren ______________________________________________________________ | 24778|9779|2010-12-15 09:03:30|rhko47|Re: Composting head|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 04:21:35PM -0000, rhko47 wrote: > > In the files section there is a picture of the Nonolet toilet. Looking > > at http://www.de12ambachten.nl/eng-greentech/07-12%20diynonolet.html > > How to make a DIY Nonolet, this system looks easier for DIY > > construction than an Airhead/Nature's Head type of system, has no > > moving parts, and uses simple, readily available supplies (plastic > > bags, biodegradable if you want, and paper) and produces a smaller > > volume of waste to dispose of (compressed dry non-smelling feces and > > paper, no peat). Does anyone have any experience with this system? > > No experience with it, but I read about it while researching which > composting head I should buy. They even have what they call a "marine > version" - > > http://www.de12ambachten.nl/engnonolethow.html > > However, it's pretty clear that they a) don't understand that boats > pitch, and b) they missed the point of the primary school physics demo > with the water level in a hose when the ends are held at different > levels (the overboard drainage in their boat picture is higher than the > top of the Nonolet. :) > > It's certainly possible that this system would work on a boat - the > principle sounds interesting - but I, for one, wouldn't want to > discover... um, let's just call them the bugs in their system; finding > out that it fails in rough weather just as a three-day-long storm is > starting would be a Bad Thing. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik I don't place too much faith in their drawings of a marine installation, or in their assertion that urine which has passed over feces can legally or safely be piped into the sink outlet. (The illustration does seem to assume a pump that lifts the combined liquid waste to discharge overboard above the waterline.) For one thing, doing that would provide a direct path for spread of organisms from the contaminated urine back up to your sink drain and then all too easily to food preparation surfaces. I would collect the urine in a holding tank (as Airhead and NH do), and pump it or dump it when appropriate. The big advantage would be in the handling or the solids. No peat or coir to buy or store, no need to hydrate the coir (which, incidentally, is cheaply available in the garden section of Menards - like Home Depot), no guessing about the remaining capacity of the peat/coir to handle more feces (and a bucket with a kitchen trash bag would hold a *lot* of compressed/dried stool before being obviously full), no having to instruct guests not to urinate into the hole for the solids, no wondering if the agitator is going to fail at some point (and the agitator is the most problematic part of the Airhead/NH for DIY construction). Just how do you envision that the system might "fail" in a pitching boat, assuming that the holding tank is below the urine collection drain? > | 24779|9779|2010-12-15 11:17:40|Ben Okopnik|Re: Composting head|On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 02:03:21PM -0000, rhko47 wrote: > > I don't place too much faith in their drawings of a marine > installation, or in their assertion that urine which has passed over > feces can legally or safely be piped into the sink outlet. (The > illustration does seem to assume a pump that lifts the combined liquid > waste to discharge overboard above the waterline.) For one thing, > doing that would provide a direct path for spread of organisms from > the contaminated urine back up to your sink drain and then all too > easily to food preparation surfaces. I would collect the urine in a > holding tank (as Airhead and NH do), and pump it or dump it when > appropriate. That would be a good modification, yes. > Just how do you envision that the system might "fail" in a pitching > boat, assuming that the holding tank is below the urine collection > drain? My comments were directed toward the current state of the design, which doesn't have a holding tank in place. Asking the above is like saying "yeah, but other than *that*, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" Taken on a larger scale, though, the point is that I don't want to pay the cost of guessing (and specifically, of guessing wrong): as an engineer, I *know* that new designs always fail and need to be debugged. The Nature's Head sells for ~$800 - but the materials in it are worth maybe $20-$30 (as Brent has proved.) The premium is for the fact that it's been tested in thousands of installations, and the majority of those problems have been handled by this point. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24780|24756|2010-12-15 16:05:43|Etc|Re: Composting Head|Friends of mine, use a very simple "home made" composting head in their home. No vent in the system, no smell, it's really impressive!! They use compressed hardwood pellets ( for stove ) for the composting medium. It's really cheap ( like 20$~40$ by year, for a family of four, full time use ) and it's easy to manipulate ( you don't need to break it, it's already very small ). The head is only a box with a regular toilet seat. In the box under the seat, you have a big plastic bucket ( like a 5 gallons of paint ). You have to glue some rubber or some insulation strip on the back face of the cover just to prevent some fly or bug to go in the box when the seat it's close. You put about two or three inch's of pellets in the bottom of the empty bucket before use. After a number 2 you put all your toilet paper and a small cup of pellets in the head. If you have wood sawdust, you can put a cup of that too for the look. Urine go in the bucket directly...! It's take a really long time fill the bucket at 3/4 and it's really dry. At this point, just empty the bucket ( reserve it in a bag by example ) and restart ... You can also swap with a empty bucket to delay the disposal operation and put a cap on the full one ( with a pin hole vent ? )... It's simple, with no smell and no vent... I saw it and smell it, it's work! :) My two cents, Etienne >>>> Just a note.. We have been using Coir as our composting medium. It sounds a bit more expensive than what Ben is using but it comes in compressed bricks.On brick of it that is 4x6x8 will with the addition of a half gallon of water expand into about 2.5 gallons of composting mix. It is a lot easier to store than the peat if you have space issues. I think we paid about 2 or 3 dollars a brick by buying 20 some bricks at the time off the Internet. we found it hard to find locally. as far as actual use it seems to work good. We put the brick in a trash bag and add water the day before we empty the head. We are looking at some sort of contain we can have next to the head with a scoop though.. If you let this stuff get away from you it gets everywhere :). I've heard that peat moss isn't as messy when adding it to the head. Not that it has been a big issue. I have just learned to be a little more careful with it. scott > > 3) You have to remember to keep a stock of peat on board. That's not > hard - a 3 cubic yard bag (HUGE!!!) costs $10, and a third of it, which > is all I was able to stow away in my lockers, kept me going for over two > years, including the "getting used to it" phase, where I was using twice > or three times more than necessary. I portion it out into two-gallon > Ziploc bags, toss a disposable plastic cup into the bag that I'm using, > and all is well. | 24781|24758|2010-12-15 16:17:10|brentswain38|Re: Hole in the hull?|Good points, but the welds around the hole are no weaker than any other welds holding the hull together , and the hole makes things light years easier when sandblasting. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Hi Kim, > > A guess ? The outside is way easier to sandblast than the inside. Ask them to do all of the outside, and then the lowest parts in the inside. If the lowest parts of the interior are sandblasted first and one cleans out the sand manually, there will not be too much sand inside because it is a small area. Then one can prime the lowest areas (and the outside). Then the sandblaster might return to blast everything else on the inside -- the inside is a longer, trickier job, lots of corners and such, will take longer than the outside anyway. Then sweep, vacuum and airspray toward the low area that is already done and paint everything else. After the paint is dry, then vacuum out the bulk of the sand from the low area at your convenience. How is that for an idea ? I hate it idea of making a hole. If you do make a hole, you will just have to clean, weld, clean and prime the hole later. > > Since all of the welding I have done has been joining members, not plate stuff, I keep my grinder, wire wheel and primer can with me as I weld. Before it is even cool, I am cleaning the welds, and when it is merely warm, I prime it. I finish the welds as I go. No time for rust to start. > > Matt > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: kimdxx@... > Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 04:34:50 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Hole in the hull? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello everyone ... > > > > I know that many Brent boats have been build using wheel-abraded, pre-primed sheets of steel, and consequently sandblasting the interior after construction hasn't been necessary. Unfortunately, buying steel prepared this way just isn't an option here. > > > > Instead, I'll have to sandblast both the interior and exterior when all the welding is finished and its ready for painting. However, I very definitely wont try to do the sandblasting myself - instead, I'll hire a specialist sandblaster with a big rig who will hopefully be able to do the job pretty quickly. > > > > For those of you who also had to sandblast everything prior to painting, my question is this: when sandblasting the interior, how did you get the used sandblasting sand out of the hull? > > > > Whatever method you used to get it out, I assume it had to be a very fast and efficient procedure, as getting the first coat of primer on should happen ASAP after blasting, right? And I assume you wouldn't want to be painting over any grains of sand left behind? > > > > Did you use some sort of giant vacuum cleaner to get the sand out? Or is it best to cut a hole in the bottom of the hull and try to manually sweep it all out? > > > > If you cut a hole in the bottom of the hull, how big was the hole? Was it right on the centerline? Or off to one side a bit? How did you later cover the hole: with an overlapping plate, or a flush insert piece? If an overlapping cover plate, did you put it on the exterior or interior? If a flush insert piece, was it tricky to weld back in? > > > > I'm still many months away from putting the last weld on my boat, so it wont be ready for sandblasting anytime soon. But if I have to cut a hole in the bottom of the hull to get the sandblasting sand out, then I may as well cut it out now, as that will make it easier to sweep out leaves and other stuff that falls into the hull. > > > > Sorry for all the questions! But I've never been involved with sandblasting anything this big before, so any advice would be very much appreciated! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24782|24756|2010-12-15 16:19:13|brentswain38|Composting Head|The composting material you find under old moss covered logs works as well as anything. I've tried them all, and couldn't see any difference. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 02:29:06AM -0000, scott wrote: > > Just a note.. We have been using Coir as our composting medium. > > The problem that I had with coir is actually two-fold: 1) as you > mentioned, it can be hard to find (and sometimes, when you do find it, > it's _ridiculously_ expensive - as in $25 for a brick!), and 2) out of 3 > bricks of it that I bought - different places, different manufacturers, > etc - one of them simply failed to expand. I did everything I could, but > ended up taking the remains back to the store (the replacement worked > fine.) Also, picking the stuff apart without scattering it everywhere > was a bit of a challenge. > > Unlike you, though, I never did find a hassle-free way to work with the > stuff. Having to keep a large basin or bucket around that's full of the > stuff while it soaks was a pain - and if you failed to predict when you > were going to need it, it turned into a minor emergency. > > In the end, I just went with peat. The space considerations went away as > soon as I subdivided it all into 2-gallon bags: they can be mashed into > almost any shape and so can be easily stowed in all kinds of odd > corners. Given how many of those there are on a boat, a couple of years' > supply is easy to put away - even if you have "no space left". > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24783|9779|2010-12-15 16:24:54|brentswain38|Re: Composting head|An agitator weld up out of 5/16th or 3/8th rod has little chance of failing. You could also go half inch with no problems. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "rhko47" wrote: > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 04:21:35PM -0000, rhko47 wrote: > > > In the files section there is a picture of the Nonolet toilet. Looking > > > at http://www.de12ambachten.nl/eng-greentech/07-12%20diynonolet.html > > > How to make a DIY Nonolet, this system looks easier for DIY > > > construction than an Airhead/Nature's Head type of system, has no > > > moving parts, and uses simple, readily available supplies (plastic > > > bags, biodegradable if you want, and paper) and produces a smaller > > > volume of waste to dispose of (compressed dry non-smelling feces and > > > paper, no peat). Does anyone have any experience with this system? > > > > No experience with it, but I read about it while researching which > > composting head I should buy. They even have what they call a "marine > > version" - > > > > http://www.de12ambachten.nl/engnonolethow.html > > > > However, it's pretty clear that they a) don't understand that boats > > pitch, and b) they missed the point of the primary school physics demo > > with the water level in a hose when the ends are held at different > > levels (the overboard drainage in their boat picture is higher than the > > top of the Nonolet. :) > > > > It's certainly possible that this system would work on a boat - the > > principle sounds interesting - but I, for one, wouldn't want to > > discover... um, let's just call them the bugs in their system; finding > > out that it fails in rough weather just as a three-day-long storm is > > starting would be a Bad Thing. > > > > > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > I don't place too much faith in their drawings of a marine installation, or in their assertion that urine which has passed over feces can legally or safely be piped into the sink outlet. (The illustration does seem to assume a pump that lifts the combined liquid waste to discharge overboard above the waterline.) For one thing, doing that would provide a direct path for spread of organisms from the contaminated urine back up to your sink drain and then all too easily to food preparation surfaces. I would collect the urine in a holding tank (as Airhead and NH do), and pump it or dump it when appropriate. > > The big advantage would be in the handling or the solids. No peat or coir to buy or store, no need to hydrate the coir (which, incidentally, is cheaply available in the garden section of Menards - like Home Depot), no guessing about the remaining capacity of the peat/coir to handle more feces (and a bucket with a kitchen trash bag would hold a *lot* of compressed/dried stool before being obviously full), no having to instruct guests not to urinate into the hole for the solids, no wondering if the agitator is going to fail at some point (and the agitator is the most problematic part of the Airhead/NH for DIY construction). > > Just how do you envision that the system might "fail" in a pitching boat, assuming that the holding tank is below the urine collection drain? > > > > | 24784|9779|2010-12-15 16:26:53|brentswain38|Re: Composting head|How much testing does a bucket a separator and shit disturber need to prove itself? Not $800 worth. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 02:03:21PM -0000, rhko47 wrote: > > > > I don't place too much faith in their drawings of a marine > > installation, or in their assertion that urine which has passed over > > feces can legally or safely be piped into the sink outlet. (The > > illustration does seem to assume a pump that lifts the combined liquid > > waste to discharge overboard above the waterline.) For one thing, > > doing that would provide a direct path for spread of organisms from > > the contaminated urine back up to your sink drain and then all too > > easily to food preparation surfaces. I would collect the urine in a > > holding tank (as Airhead and NH do), and pump it or dump it when > > appropriate. > > That would be a good modification, yes. > > > Just how do you envision that the system might "fail" in a pitching > > boat, assuming that the holding tank is below the urine collection > > drain? > > My comments were directed toward the current state of the design, which > doesn't have a holding tank in place. Asking the above is like saying > "yeah, but other than *that*, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" > Taken on a larger scale, though, the point is that I don't want to pay > the cost of guessing (and specifically, of guessing wrong): as an > engineer, I *know* that new designs always fail and need to be debugged. > The Nature's Head sells for ~$800 - but the materials in it are worth > maybe $20-$30 (as Brent has proved.) The premium is for the fact that > it's been tested in thousands of installations, and the majority of > those problems have been handled by this point. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24785|9779|2010-12-15 19:22:29|Ben Okopnik|Re: Composting head|On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 09:26:52PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > How much testing does a bucket a separator and shit disturber need to prove itself? Not $800 worth. The Nonolet is a totally different system. What you're describing works well and can be built cheaply (wish I'd known about your version when I was looking for what to buy...) and has been tested again and again. My point is that there's no reason to use the Nonolet when the kind of system that you and I are both using exists. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24786|24756|2010-12-16 23:01:32|jhess314|Re: Composting Head|Etienne, If this really works, then it sounds like a great system. I've stored/composted kitchen vegetable scraps with sawdust, stored in plastic burlap bags. No smell, no fluid leaks. Never thought to try it with human waste. Best, John --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Etc wrote: > > Friends of mine, use a very simple "home made" composting head in their > home. > > No vent in the system, no smell, it's really impressive!! They use > compressed hardwood pellets ( for stove ) for the composting medium. > It's really cheap ( like 20$~40$ by year, for a family of four, full > time use ) and it's easy to manipulate ( you don't need to break it, > it's already very small ). > > The head is only a box with a regular toilet seat. In the box under the > seat, you have a big plastic bucket ( like a 5 gallons of paint ). You > have to glue some rubber or some insulation strip on the back face of > the cover just to prevent some fly or bug to go in the box when the seat > it's close. > > You put about two or three inch's of pellets in the bottom of the empty > bucket before use. After a number 2 you put all your toilet paper and a > small cup of pellets in the head. If you have wood sawdust, you can put > a cup of that too for the look. Urine go in the bucket directly...! It's > take a really long time fill the bucket at 3/4 and it's really dry. At > this point, just empty the bucket ( reserve it in a bag by example ) > and restart ... You can also swap with a empty bucket to delay the > disposal operation and put a cap on the full one ( with a pin hole vent > ? )... > > It's simple, with no smell and no vent... I saw it and smell it, it's > work! :) > > My two cents, > Etienne | 24787|1184|2010-12-17 11:50:13|jpronk1|Twin Keels|I am starting to work on the keels for my BS 36. I am doing these because the material has become available and it will give me a good place to store the lead. I have some 1"(25.4mm) plate that I was going to cut the bottoms out of and I was wondering if I should get them hot dipped galvanized before welding the keel together. I have other work that I was sending in and would just run these through with them. My plan was to build keels similar to Edward Stones boat "Fly". I would paint them as well but I just thought it would give more protection if I ever did scrape the bottom ( I've been know to push my luck) James| 24788|1184|2010-12-17 11:56:07|Tom Mann|Re: Twin Keels|Reading up on the subject, Galvanized is not a good thing underwater with paint on it, several accound where the paint got scratched then the paint started comming off in sheets. Tom On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:50 AM, jpronk1 wrote: > I am starting to work on the keels for my BS 36. I am doing these because > the material has become available and it will give me a good place to store > the lead. > I have some 1"(25.4mm) plate that I was going to cut the bottoms out of and > I was wondering if I should get them hot dipped galvanized before welding > the keel together. I have other work that I was sending in and would just > run these through with them. > My plan was to build keels similar to Edward Stones boat "Fly". I would > paint them as well but I just thought it would give more protection if I > ever did scrape the bottom ( I've been know to push my luck) > James > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24789|1184|2010-12-17 13:33:57|James Pronk|Re: Twin Keels|I think if I prep it right the paint will not fall off in sheets. I have painted a lot of galvanzed work and the paint has not started falling off work that is 10 years old. What would cause it to fall off under water? James --- On Fri, 12/17/10, Tom Mann wrote: From: Tom Mann Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Twin Keels To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Friday, December 17, 2010, 11:56 AM   Reading up on the subject, Galvanized is not a good thing underwater with paint on it, several accound where the paint got scratched then the paint started comming off in sheets. Tom > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24790|1184|2010-12-17 14:19:38|Tom Mann|Re: Twin Keels|Yes it does hold up fine above water. Underwater from what I understand the galvanizing starts to self sacrafice under the paint from the exposed area. Brent mentioned he had trouble with the paint comming off on his skeg that was galvanized, I talked to Phil at fine line and he rememberd from way back when it was supposd to be the best way to do it and he said a lot of people had problems with the paint staying on underwater , I was thinking about doing my next boat all galvanized, If I do when finished I will sandblast it all off up to the WL and go directly to epoxy there. Tom On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:33 AM, James Pronk wrote: > I think if I prep it right the paint will not fall off in sheets. I have > painted a lot of galvanzed work and the paint has not started falling off > work that is 10 years old. > What would cause it to fall off under water? > James > > --- On Fri, 12/17/10, Tom Mann wrote: > > > From: Tom Mann > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Twin Keels > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Friday, December 17, 2010, 11:56 AM > > > > > > > Reading up on the subject, Galvanized is not a good thing underwater with > paint on it, several accound where the paint got scratched then the paint > started comming off in sheets. > Tom > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24791|1184|2010-12-17 15:32:55|Ben Okopnik|Re: Twin Keels|On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 08:56:06AM -0800, Tom Mann wrote: > Reading up on the subject, Galvanized is not a good thing underwater with > paint on it, several accound where the paint got scratched then the paint > started comming off in sheets. Wow, that sucks. Must have been a badly done paint job (whatever that may mean in relation to painting on galv; I'm the last guy in the world who'd claim to be an expert on paint.) For whatever it's worth, I've seen a boat where the hull had been zinc-coated (flame-gun plus zinc powder, not actual galvanizing) and have spoken to several people whose boats were treated this way. Since I was researching this method for my own boat at the time, I asked lots of questions about it; none of them had any problems with paint over the zinc. In fact, one owner who's had experience with both reported better adhesion than painting over sandblasted steel. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24792|1184|2010-12-17 15:52:54|brentswain38|Re: Twin Keels|My twin keels are bare steel for the last six inches and thge bottom. they look like freashly sandblasted steel, have done so for decades and I see no sign of pitting ot serious thinning. It is not worth the expense of having anything down there galvanized as long as you keep yur zincs up. Ther is no advantage to galvanizing them. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jpronk1" wrote: > > I am starting to work on the keels for my BS 36. I am doing these because the material has become available and it will give me a good place to store the lead. > I have some 1"(25.4mm) plate that I was going to cut the bottoms out of and I was wondering if I should get them hot dipped galvanized before welding the keel together. I have other work that I was sending in and would just run these through with them. > My plan was to build keels similar to Edward Stones boat "Fly". I would paint them as well but I just thought it would give more protection if I ever did scrape the bottom ( I've been know to push my luck) > James > | 24793|24793|2010-12-17 16:00:38|brentswain38|Stability curves|Up until 1984 , we used to cut a 5 1/2 inch sheer in the bulwark plate on the 36. Then I found out that the factory edge makes a good looking sheer , sio started using the factory edge. Some boats are still done with the cut sheer , as some prefer the more traditional sheer , even if it means giving up that much more interior space. The stabilty curves posted are for the boat with the cut sheer, with about 5 1/2 inches less freeboard amidships. A stability curve with the new factory edge sheer will show a much higher ultimate stability angle. Raising the buoyancy of the cabin , wheelhouse( about ten thosand pounds of buoyancy) as well as the decks, will make a huge increase in ultimate stability.| 24794|1184|2010-12-17 16:10:44|Paul Wilson|Re: Twin Keels|I think its not so much that the epoxy comes off in sheets but the zinc underneath the epoxy acts like a zinc anode and then bubbles the paint off locally around around any scratch or defect in the coating. This makes a small scratch worse but, either way it still needs to be fixed. If you have no defects in the epoxy coating, you should have no bubbling. It is very important to have enough epoxy to form a barrier to isolate the zinc from copper anti-foulings. It's my guess, but if paint came off in sheets, I suspect this is what might be happening. I painted with inorganic zinc down to and just below the waterline. I have never had a problem where the zinc is below the water and as you say there are lots of zinc sprayed boats without a problem. The important thing in my mind is that as a cost saving, there is no advantage to use zinc below the waterline. However, if I had zinc below the waterline (like in the case of a weldable primer) it wouldn't worry me to leave it on and overcoat with epoxy. Cheers, Paul On 12/18/2010 9:32 AM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 08:56:06AM -0800, Tom Mann wrote: > > Reading up on the subject, Galvanized is not a good thing underwater > with > > paint on it, several accound where the paint got scratched then the > paint > > started comming off in sheets. > > Wow, that sucks. Must have been a badly done paint job (whatever that > may mean in relation to painting on galv; I'm the last guy in the world > who'd claim to be an expert on paint.) > > For whatever it's worth, I've seen a boat where the hull had been > zinc-coated (flame-gun plus zinc powder, not actual galvanizing) and > have spoken to several people whose boats were treated this way. Since > I was researching this method for my own boat at the time, I asked lots > of questions about it; none of them had any problems with paint over the > zinc. In fact, one owner who's had experience with both reported better > adhesion than painting over sandblasted steel. > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3321 - Release Date: 12/17/10 20:34:00 > | 24795|1184|2010-12-17 16:58:29|Tom Mann|Re: Twin Keels|Yep I nerver did get a bad report from anyone using flame sprayed or zinc rich primer. Flame sprayed was pretty popular before the epoxies got a lot better. Tom On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > I think its not so much that the epoxy comes off in sheets but the zinc > underneath the epoxy acts like a zinc anode and then bubbles the paint > off locally around around any scratch or defect in the coating. This > makes a small scratch worse but, either way it still needs to be fixed. > If you have no defects in the epoxy coating, you should have no > bubbling. It is very important to have enough epoxy to form a barrier to > isolate the zinc from copper anti-foulings. It's my guess, but if paint > came off in sheets, I suspect this is what might be happening. > > I painted with inorganic zinc down to and just below the waterline. I > have never had a problem where the zinc is below the water and as you > say there are lots of zinc sprayed boats without a problem. > > The important thing in my mind is that as a cost saving, there is no > advantage to use zinc below the waterline. However, if I had zinc below > the waterline (like in the case of a weldable primer) it wouldn't worry > me to leave it on and overcoat with epoxy. > > Cheers, Paul > > On 12/18/2010 9:32 AM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 08:56:06AM -0800, Tom Mann wrote: > > > Reading up on the subject, Galvanized is not a good thing underwater > > with > > > paint on it, several accound where the paint got scratched then the > > paint > > > started comming off in sheets. > > > > Wow, that sucks. Must have been a badly done paint job (whatever that > > may mean in relation to painting on galv; I'm the last guy in the world > > who'd claim to be an expert on paint.) > > > > For whatever it's worth, I've seen a boat where the hull had been > > zinc-coated (flame-gun plus zinc powder, not actual galvanizing) and > > have spoken to several people whose boats were treated this way. Since > > I was researching this method for my own boat at the time, I asked lots > > of questions about it; none of them had any problems with paint over the > > zinc. In fact, one owner who's had experience with both reported better > > adhesion than painting over sandblasted steel. > > > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3321 - Release Date: 12/17/10 > 20:34:00 > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24796|24796|2010-12-17 18:18:01|mike_litzow|Foldex and Cor-ten in the cold|G'day...new member of this group, wanted to see if anyone can give me feedback on a boat that we're considering buying. She's a Noble 451 - basically a one-off (as far as I know two were built). 45 footer, hull and deck 3/16" Cor-ten, keel sides 1/4", keel bottom 1/2". Construction is "Foldex", designer Gary Noble Curtis. Built 1989 by Noble Yachts, Long Beach, CA. Remained unfinished until purchased by 2nd owner in '03, launched '05. So... anyone know anything about "Foldex" frameless construction? Also, our intended use of the boat includes high-latitude sailiing. I have been warned that Cor-ten is more brittle than mild steel, and that this brittleness will be exacerbated by cold, so that Cor-ten might not be a good choice for navigating icy waters. Can anyone give me guidance about the suitability for Cor-ten and cold-water sailing? Thanks!| 24797|24793|2010-12-17 18:35:40|wild_explorer|Re: Stability curves|Yep, I used information what was available to me at the time of making 3D model for BS36. I am working on new stability curve for BS36 using updated information. P.S. Do not forget that stability curve is for BS36's 3D-model with IRON ballast. P.S.S. Do not compare BS36 stability curve with another 3D-model in the same directory. That boat has bigger displacement. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Up until 1984 , we used to cut a 5 1/2 inch sheer in the bulwark plate on the 36. Then I found out that the factory edge makes a good looking sheer , sio started using the factory edge. Some boats are still done with the cut sheer , as some prefer the more traditional sheer , even if it means giving up that much more interior space. > The stabilty curves posted are for the boat with the cut sheer, with about 5 1/2 inches less freeboard amidships. A stability curve with the new factory edge sheer will show a much higher ultimate stability angle. Raising the buoyancy of the cabin , wheelhouse( about ten thosand pounds of buoyancy) as well as the decks, will make a huge increase in ultimate stability. > | 24798|24796|2010-12-17 20:52:46|Matt Malone|Re: Foldex and Cor-ten in the cold|Corten is a high strength , low alloy steel. It is used in ship construction and shipping containers. It is is really tough to drill a hole in, cut with a blade. It has to be painted. I have never looked into its low-temperature properties, but, they make shipping containers out of Corten, and they are mistreated in virtually every climate, and hold 60,000 pounds, and clank against other containers every time they are loaded. I cannot imagine a boat being more routinely and extremely mistreated. Any brittleness that is a practical problem would have to be some chemically-mediated cracking, or for geometries like welded-on railings, or something. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mike_litzow@... Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:01:21 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Foldex and Cor-ten in the cold G'day...new member of this group, wanted to see if anyone can give me feedback on a boat that we're considering buying. She's a Noble 451 - basically a one-off (as far as I know two were built). 45 footer, hull and deck 3/16" Cor-ten, keel sides 1/4", keel bottom 1/2". Construction is "Foldex", designer Gary Noble Curtis. Built 1989 by Noble Yachts, Long Beach, CA. Remained unfinished until purchased by 2nd owner in '03, launched '05. So... anyone know anything about "Foldex" frameless construction? Also, our intended use of the boat includes high-latitude sailiing. I have been warned that Cor-ten is more brittle than mild steel, and that this brittleness will be exacerbated by cold, so that Cor-ten might not be a good choice for navigating icy waters. Can anyone give me guidance about the suitability for Cor-ten and cold-water sailing? Thanks! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24799|24457|2010-12-17 22:44:44|Doug Jackson|More fun with Origami Models.|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mpSPd-00bo Lesson learned: Make really small changes. Doug ArgonautJr.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24800|24800|2010-12-18 04:11:55|Denis Buggy|Re: zinc problems|re zinc problems -- we have to paint buses and coaches which have a number of different surfaces -- roof --plastic --front and rear plastic luggage doors aluminium and the continuous panel under the windows is known as the stretch panel as you have to bond it to the coach while heating it and applying about 2 tons of pull to take the kinks out --- this panel is galvanized steel 40 ft by 4 ft single panel 1 mm thick . this panel gives a lot of problems as you need to coat it inside and out with etch primer ===which is acid based / activated paint . you cannot sand it once you apply it as you may de nib the thin coat of galvanize while sanding and if you do you better have 10,000.00 euros ready to remove the 40 ft bonded panel replace and repaint and supply a relief vehicle while smiling continuously. the stretch panels all rot in the same place -- over the rear wheels as the electrolyses produced by braking and the static from the 4 wheels motion set up a effect which burns pinholes in the panel -- to cure this the only solution is to fit a stainless steel stretch panel which is now fitted to most top end makes . you do not have a prayer trying to paint galv without etch primer . try and roll and brush quickly -- it is very fast drying and you can make a mess easily unless you move quickly -- do not spray -- do not spray as you do not have a mask capable of keeping the acid out -- it is terrible shit and we have air fed masks filtered and dried from a screw compressor and we do not like using it -- we always paint the rear of the panel by hand to avoid as much as we can the spraying of this stuff . Denis Buggy ----- Original Messag On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 08:56:06AM -0800, Tom Mann wrote: > Reading up on the subject, Galvanized is not a good thing underwater with > paint on it, several accound where the paint got scratched then the paint > started comming off in sheets. Wow, that sucks. Must have been a badly done paint job (whatever that may mean in relation to painting on galv; I'm the last guy in the world who'd claim to be an expert on paint.) For whatever it's worth, I've seen a boat where the hull had been zinc-coated (flame-gun plus zinc powder, not actual galvanizing) and have spoken to several people whose boats were treated this way. Since I was researching this method for my own boat at the time, I asked lots of questions about it; none of them had any problems with paint over the zinc. In fact, one owner who's had experience with both reported better adhesion than painting over sandblasted steel. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24801|24800|2010-12-18 12:52:59|Aaron Williams|Re: zinc problems|Denis Ever tried powder coating that section ? Aaron ________________________________ From: Denis Buggy To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, December 18, 2010 12:12:02 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] zinc problems   re zinc problems -- we have to paint buses and coaches which have a number of different surfaces -- roof --plastic --front and rear plastic luggage doors aluminium and the continuous panel under the windows is known as the stretch panel as you have to bond it to the coach while heating it and applying about 2 tons of pull to take the kinks out --- this panel is galvanized steel 40 ft by 4 ft single panel 1 mm thick . this panel gives a lot of problems as you need to coat it inside and out with etch primer ===which is acid based / activated paint . you cannot sand it once you apply it as you may de nib the thin coat of galvanize while sanding and if you do you better have 10,000.00 euros ready to remove the 40 ft bonded panel replace and repaint and supply a relief vehicle while smiling continuously. the stretch panels all rot in the same place -- over the rear wheels as the electrolyses produced by braking and the static from the 4 wheels motion set up a effect which burns pinholes in the panel -- to cure this the only solution is to fit a stainless steel stretch panel which is now fitted to most top end makes . you do not have a prayer trying to paint galv without etch primer . try and roll and brush quickly -- it is very fast drying and you can make a mess easily unless you move quickly -- do not spray -- do not spray as you do not have a mask capable of keeping the acid out -- it is terrible shit and we have air fed masks filtered and dried from a screw compressor and we do not like using it -- we always paint the rear of the panel by hand to avoid as much as we can the spraying of this stuff . Denis Buggy ----- Original Messag On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 08:56:06AM -0800, Tom Mann wrote: > Reading up on the subject, Galvanized is not a good thing underwater with > paint on it, several accound where the paint got scratched then the paint > started comming off in sheets. Wow, that sucks. Must have been a badly done paint job (whatever that may mean in relation to painting on galv; I'm the last guy in the world who'd claim to be an expert on paint.) For whatever it's worth, I've seen a boat where the hull had been zinc-coated (flame-gun plus zinc powder, not actual galvanizing) and have spoken to several people whose boats were treated this way. Since I was researching this method for my own boat at the time, I asked lots of questions about it; none of them had any problems with paint over the zinc. In fact, one owner who's had experience with both reported better adhesion than painting over sandblasted steel. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24802|24800|2010-12-18 14:04:51|Denis Buggy|Re: zinc problems|Aaron powder coating is excellent where it works -- un fortunately a bus moves continuously and is composed of many panels of different materials which all require a different primer but are then finished by a finish coat of colour which must be flexible as a 40 ft/ 12 meter bus can grow 3-4 mm on a hot day and contract 3-4 mm at --minus 10C all without cracking the finish . powder is very hard and brittle and is used on handrails and seat legs which do corrode on the bottom from the floor cleaning detergent -- I am not expert in its use and you are likely to find somebody who has actually used it and I throw it out there for an expert opinion on its use in salt water . regards Denis Buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: Aaron Williams To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 5:52 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] zinc problems Denis Ever tried powder coating that section ? Aaron ________________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24803|24800|2010-12-18 15:56:12|Aaron Williams|Re: zinc problems|I am still learning how to use it after 3 years on small art work parts. I tried a zink based  primer last year for parts on a fresh water dock but the dock has not been put in the lake yet. I don't think I would try to use it on the hull but was thinking about all of removable trim like around windows. If I buy a used motor then I would use powder coat on everything block heads and ceramic on the exhaust. Aaron ________________________________ From: Denis Buggy To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, December 18, 2010 10:05:00 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] zinc problems   Aaron powder coating is excellent where it works -- un fortunately a bus moves continuously and is composed of many panels of different materials which all require a different primer but are then finished by a finish coat of colour which must be flexible as a 40 ft/ 12 meter bus can grow 3-4 mm on a hot day and contract 3-4 mm at --minus 10C all without cracking the finish . powder is very hard and brittle and is used on handrails and seat legs which do corrode on the bottom from the floor cleaning detergent -- I am not expert in its use and you are likely to find somebody who has actually used it and I throw it out there for an expert opinion on its use in salt water . regards Denis Buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: Aaron Williams To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 5:52 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] zinc problems Denis Ever tried powder coating that section ? Aaron ________________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (3) Recent Activity: * New Members 3 * New Links 1 Visit Your Group To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24804|24796|2010-12-18 17:53:29|brentswain38|Re: Foldex and Cor-ten in the cold|What Gary does is basically multi chine origami. He does good work, as far as know. If it is bare steel it should be easy to determine what condition it is in. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mike_litzow" wrote: > > G'day...new member of this group, wanted to see if anyone can give me feedback on a boat that we're considering buying. > > She's a Noble 451 - basically a one-off (as far as I know two were built). 45 footer, hull and deck 3/16" Cor-ten, keel sides 1/4", keel bottom 1/2". Construction is "Foldex", designer Gary Noble Curtis. Built 1989 by Noble Yachts, Long Beach, CA. Remained unfinished until purchased by 2nd owner in '03, launched '05. > > So... anyone know anything about "Foldex" frameless construction? > > Also, our intended use of the boat includes high-latitude sailiing. I have been warned that Cor-ten is more brittle than mild steel, and that this brittleness will be exacerbated by cold, so that Cor-ten might not be a good choice for navigating icy waters. Can anyone give me guidance about the suitability for Cor-ten and cold-water sailing? > > Thanks! > | 24805|24793|2010-12-18 17:55:36|brentswain38|Re: Stability curves|Yes my mistake. I didn't double check the sheer on the lines I sent you, before sending them. Apologies. Brent --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Yep, I used information what was available to me at the time of making 3D model for BS36. I am working on new stability curve for BS36 using updated information. > > P.S. Do not forget that stability curve is for BS36's 3D-model with IRON ballast. > P.S.S. Do not compare BS36 stability curve with another 3D-model in the same directory. That boat has bigger displacement. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Up until 1984 , we used to cut a 5 1/2 inch sheer in the bulwark plate on the 36. Then I found out that the factory edge makes a good looking sheer , sio started using the factory edge. Some boats are still done with the cut sheer , as some prefer the more traditional sheer , even if it means giving up that much more interior space. > > The stabilty curves posted are for the boat with the cut sheer, with about 5 1/2 inches less freeboard amidships. A stability curve with the new factory edge sheer will show a much higher ultimate stability angle. Raising the buoyancy of the cabin , wheelhouse( about ten thosand pounds of buoyancy) as well as the decks, will make a huge increase in ultimate stability. > > > | 24806|24800|2010-12-18 18:06:01|brentswain38|Re: zinc problems|Any etch primer I've seen used on steel boats has been a disaster. It is softer than the epoxy one puts over it, making the epoxy chip very easily and epoxy doesn't bind to it well. Vinegar wash has let the epoxy stick well to my galv decks, cockpit and cabin, very well for the last 26 years. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > > re zinc problems -- we have to paint buses and coaches which have a number of different surfaces -- roof --plastic --front and rear plastic > > luggage doors aluminium and the continuous panel under the windows is known as the stretch panel as you have to bond it to the coach while heating it and applying about 2 tons of pull to take the kinks out --- this panel is galvanized steel 40 ft by 4 ft single panel 1 mm thick . > this panel gives a lot of problems as you need to coat it inside and out with etch primer ===which is acid based / activated paint . > you cannot sand it once you apply it as you may de nib the thin coat of galvanize while sanding and if you do you better have 10,000.00 euros ready to remove the 40 ft bonded panel replace and repaint and supply a relief vehicle while smiling continuously. > the stretch panels all rot in the same place -- over the rear wheels as the electrolyses produced by braking and the static from the 4 wheels motion set up a effect which burns pinholes in the panel -- to cure this the only solution is to fit a stainless steel stretch panel which is now fitted to most top end makes . you do not have a prayer trying to paint galv without etch primer . > try and roll and brush quickly -- it is very fast drying and you can make a mess easily unless you move quickly -- do not spray -- do not spray as you do not have a mask capable of keeping the acid out -- it is terrible shit and we have air fed masks filtered and dried from a screw compressor and we do not like using it -- we always paint the rear of the panel by hand to avoid as much as we can the spraying of this stuff . > Denis Buggy > > > > ----- Original Messag > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 08:56:06AM -0800, Tom Mann wrote: > > Reading up on the subject, Galvanized is not a good thing underwater with > > paint on it, several accound where the paint got scratched then the paint > > started comming off in sheets. > > Wow, that sucks. Must have been a badly done paint job (whatever that > may mean in relation to painting on galv; I'm the last guy in the world > who'd claim to be an expert on paint.) > > For whatever it's worth, I've seen a boat where the hull had been > zinc-coated (flame-gun plus zinc powder, not actual galvanizing) and > have spoken to several people whose boats were treated this way. Since > I was researching this method for my own boat at the time, I asked lots > of questions about it; none of them had any problems with paint over the > zinc. In fact, one owner who's had experience with both reported better > adhesion than painting over sandblasted steel. > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24807|24800|2010-12-18 18:08:25|brentswain38|Re: zinc problems|The big advantage of zinc primer is if you chip the epoxy, it only chips down to the zinc, instead of bare steel, giving you far more time to patch up the epoxy. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > I am still learning how to use it after 3 years on small art work parts. I tried > a zink based  primer last year for parts on a fresh water dock but the dock has > not been put in the lake yet. > I don't think I would try to use it on the hull but was thinking about all of > removable trim like around windows. If I buy a used motor then I would use > powder coat on everything block heads and ceramic on the exhaust. > Aaron > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Denis Buggy > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sat, December 18, 2010 10:05:00 AM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] zinc problems > >   > Aaron > > powder coating is excellent where it works -- un fortunately a bus moves > continuously and is composed of many panels of different materials which all > require a different primer but are then finished by a finish coat of colour > which must be flexible as a 40 ft/ 12 meter bus can grow 3-4 mm on a hot day and > contract 3-4 mm at --minus 10C all without cracking the finish . > > powder is very hard and brittle and is used on handrails and seat legs which do > corrode on the bottom from the floor cleaning detergent -- I am not expert in > its use and you are likely to find somebody who has actually used it and I throw > it out there for an expert opinion on its use in salt water . > regards Denis Buggy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Aaron Williams > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 5:52 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] zinc problems > > Denis > Ever tried powder coating that section ? > Aaron > > ________________________________ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic > Messages in this topic (3) > > Recent Activity: * New Members 3 * New Links 1 > Visit Your Group > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use > . > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24808|24800|2010-12-18 19:03:24|Johnson|Re: zinc problems|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > > re zinc problems -- we have to paint buses and coaches which have a number of different surfaces -- roof --plastic --front and rear plastic > > ****************************************************************** There's always a ton of discussion here regarding keeping paint on, zinc spraying, galvanizing and or protecting steel. I have been really impressed with 2 part epoxy especially Steelcote epoxy. I've used it now on two different boats. The next time I mix up a batch I will coat a piece of steel with 2 coats of the primer and two coats of the paint. The only prep I will do is sanding the steel to give it some tooth. I will then put the piece in a sealed 5 gallon pail of fine Comox sea water and will post the pictures here @ 6 and 12 months. I would like to say that piece of steel will look the same a year later. I have never sandblasted steel inside a boat (sounds like a sh-t job) but it seems to me that if hull and framing are done then u could sandblast, vacuum, blow it out, wash it all out with a pressure washer thru a drain hole, dry it with rented blowers and spray in epoxy primer then moucho epoxy paint and u will have a really well protected hull inside. I know this is exactly how I would have done it if I built in steel. Epoxy is expensive but everything I have read says your steel boat most likely will start to go bad on you first in the bilges. A half dozen good coats of epoxy sprayed inside will go a long way to preserving the steel. An idea might be to buy good epoxy and then for a year buy a cheaper scotch til u have the paint money back. I would never scrimp where the scrimping would cost me more in time, money and back ache later than doing it properly the first time. I can't think of anything worse that inaccessible rusting bilges. My cockpit sole has about 10 coats of paint sprayed wet on wet. So far no lifting, cracking etc. Why so thick? It will have high traffic and will always be wet or drying here in BC. I don't want to be redoing it all the time or hassling people about shoes. I feel the same way about the inside of hulls and other hard to reach places. Overdo the protection the first time when u can't get at it a second time. I wouldn't like being headfirst in the bilge with a scraper and paint cause @ 240 I don't fit in there too well. Repainting the deck and or hull exterior is just work but redoing 20' of bilges, sh-t, I'd rather be tasered or have 3 wives. I am now going out to the workshop to clean a sword so I have it ready to fall on when Brent replies. If I survive I will repair the wound with Steelcote epoxy.| 24809|24800|2010-12-18 19:23:49|Ben Okopnik|Re: zinc problems|On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:03:14AM -0000, Johnson wrote: > > I have never sandblasted steel inside a boat (sounds like a sh-t job) > but it seems to me that if hull and framing are done then u could > sandblast, vacuum, blow it out, wash it all out with a pressure washer > thru a drain hole, dry it with rented blowers and spray in epoxy > primer then moucho epoxy paint and u will have a really well protected > hull inside. I know this is exactly how I would have done it if I > built in steel. This is the one thing that I wish to hell had been done on Ulysses; I wouldn't have had to replate the hull if it had. The lower half of the hull - just about from the waterline down, plus about 2' up along the stem - was rusted out (from the inside, of course; the outside was just fine under the paint, until it finally rusted through and started leaking in one spot.) The new plate was heavily painted before it went on. Not nearly as good as 10 layers of epoxy, but a lot better than the original setup, which looked like unpainted steel. Just for general info - the hull was originally built in 4mm steel, and that lasted from 1979 until 2005, when it finally sprang that leak. So, maybe 20 years of good service and marginal for 5 more. I'm willing to bet that if it had been painted as above, the steel would still be at its original thickness or close to it. > Epoxy is expensive but everything I have read says your steel boat > most likely will start to go bad on you first in the bilges. A half > dozen good coats of epoxy sprayed inside will go a long way to > preserving the steel. I'd say that's a really sound call. > An idea might be to buy good epoxy and then for a year buy a cheaper > scotch til u have the paint money back. I would never scrimp where the > scrimping would cost me more in time, money and back ache later than > doing it properly the first time. I can't think of anything worse that > inaccessible rusting bilges. There's such a thing as being smart-lazy - which to me means working hard *now* so I can relax later - and then there's stupid-lazy (which I try never to be), which means taking it easy now but half-killing yourself, or wasting huge amounts of money, later. Painting your bilges, no matter how hard it may be, is smart-lazy. > I feel the same way about the inside of hulls and other hard to reach > places. Overdo the protection the first time when u can't get at it a > second time. I wouldn't like being headfirst in the bilge with a > scraper and paint cause @ 240 I don't fit in there too well. > Repainting the deck and or hull exterior is just work but redoing 20' > of bilges, sh-t, I'd rather be tasered or have 3 wives. [laugh] Even if you change that "or" to "and", it would still be the right decision. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24810|24800|2010-12-18 22:02:11|Aaron Williams|Re: zinc problems|Mickey If you wash the steel after blasting then it will rust immediately and the primer will fail under the paint what a mess it would be. Aaron ________________________________ From: Johnson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, December 18, 2010 3:03:14 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc problems   --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > > re zinc problems -- we have to paint buses and coaches which have a number of >different surfaces -- roof --plastic --front and rear plastic > > > ****************************************************************** There's always a ton of discussion here regarding keeping paint on, zinc spraying, galvanizing and or protecting steel. I have been really impressed with 2 part epoxy especially Steelcote epoxy. I've used it now on two different boats. The next time I mix up a batch I will coat a piece of steel with 2 coats of the primer and two coats of the paint. The only prep I will do is sanding the steel to give it some tooth. I will then put the piece in a sealed 5 gallon pail of fine Comox sea water and will post the pictures here @ 6 and 12 months. I would like to say that piece of steel will look the same a year later. I have never sandblasted steel inside a boat (sounds like a sh-t job) but it seems to me that if hull and framing are done then u could sandblast, vacuum, blow it out, wash it all out with a pressure washer thru a drain hole, dry it with rented blowers and spray in epoxy primer then moucho epoxy paint and u will have a really well protected hull inside. I know this is exactly how I would have done it if I built in steel. Epoxy is expensive but everything I have read says your steel boat most likely will start to go bad on you first in the bilges. A half dozen good coats of epoxy sprayed inside will go a long way to preserving the steel. An idea might be to buy good epoxy and then for a year buy a cheaper scotch til u have the paint money back. I would never scrimp where the scrimping would cost me more in time, money and back ache later than doing it properly the first time. I can't think of anything worse that inaccessible rusting bilges. My cockpit sole has about 10 coats of paint sprayed wet on wet. So far no lifting, cracking etc. Why so thick? It will have high traffic and will always be wet or drying here in BC. I don't want to be redoing it all the time or hassling people about shoes. I feel the same way about the inside of hulls and other hard to reach places. Overdo the protection the first time when u can't get at it a second time. I wouldn't like being headfirst in the bilge with a scraper and paint cause @ 240 I don't fit in there too well. Repainting the deck and or hull exterior is just work but redoing 20' of bilges, sh-t, I'd rather be tasered or have 3 wives. I am now going out to the workshop to clean a sword so I have it ready to fall on when Brent replies. If I survive I will repair the wound with Steelcote epoxy. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24811|24800|2010-12-19 00:03:44|Johnson|Re: zinc problems|As I said I've never sand blasted steel. I thought a pressure washed rapidly dried interior could be painted immediately due to 2 part epoxies being very surface tolerant. Aaron, what are your thoughts if after a rapid drying the surface was wiped with an evaporating reducer to remove this immediate surface rust? I wiped clean my entire 36' hull, deck and house by myself with reducer using solvent proof paper towels I bought in huge rolls from BC Transit's supplier. When the towels stopped coming up black I painted. But my hull is aluminum. Two or 3 people could wipe down an interior on a steel 36 pretty fast. The reason I suggested pressure washing was to remove the dust from the blasting and to wash out left over sand. Even epoxy paint doesn't stick to dust. After xmas I'm going to sand then pressure wash some steel, blow dry it, and epoxy prime it and paint it and leave it outside in the yard and see what happens. I will do the sea water experiment also. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > Mickey > If you wash the steel after blasting then it will rust immediately and the > primer will fail under the paint what a mess it would be. > Aaron > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Johnson > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sat, December 18, 2010 3:03:14 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc problems > >   > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > > > > re zinc problems -- we have to paint buses and coaches which have a number of > >different surfaces -- roof --plastic --front and rear plastic > > > > > > ****************************************************************** > > There's always a ton of discussion here regarding keeping paint on, zinc > spraying, galvanizing and or protecting steel. I have been really impressed with > 2 part epoxy especially Steelcote epoxy. I've used it now on two different > boats. > > The next time I mix up a batch I will coat a piece of steel with 2 coats of the > primer and two coats of the paint. > > > The only prep I will do is sanding the steel to give it some tooth. I will then > put the piece in a sealed 5 gallon pail of fine Comox sea water and will post > the pictures here @ 6 and 12 months. > > I would like to say that piece of steel will look the same a year later. > > I have never sandblasted steel inside a boat (sounds like a sh-t job) but it > seems to me that if hull and framing are done then u could sandblast, vacuum, > blow it out, wash it all out with a pressure washer thru a drain hole, dry it > with rented blowers and spray in epoxy primer then moucho epoxy paint and u will > have a really well protected hull inside. I know this is exactly how I would > have done it if I built in steel. > > > Epoxy is expensive but everything I have read says your steel boat most likely > will start to go bad on you first in the bilges. A half dozen good coats of > epoxy sprayed inside will go a long way to preserving the steel. > > An idea might be to buy good epoxy and then for a year buy a cheaper scotch til > u have the paint money back. I would never scrimp where the scrimping would cost > me more in time, money and back ache later than doing it properly the first > time. I can't think of anything worse that inaccessible rusting bilges. > > My cockpit sole has about 10 coats of paint sprayed wet on wet. So far no > lifting, cracking etc. Why so thick? It will have high traffic and will always > be wet or drying here in BC. I don't want to be redoing it all the time or > hassling people about shoes. > > I feel the same way about the inside of hulls and other hard to reach places. > Overdo the protection the first time when u can't get at it a second time. I > wouldn't like being headfirst in the bilge with a scraper and paint cause @ 240 > I don't fit in there too well. Repainting the deck and or hull exterior is just > work but redoing 20' of bilges, sh-t, I'd rather be tasered or have 3 wives. > > > I am now going out to the workshop to clean a sword so I have it ready to fall > on when Brent replies. If I survive I will repair the wound with Steelcote > epoxy. > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24812|24800|2010-12-19 02:34:48|Aaron Williams|Re: zinc problems|I am not much of a painter ether but the NACE level one class I took 2 years ago said flash rust after sand blasting is a major cause for coating failures. Not having enough tooth in steel for the primer to grab onto is also a big problem. The coatings have directions for blast profile and the top coat should also have specific direction. I know the Devo coating I am planning to use do. I think someone (Gird?) started an experiment with Rust Bullit one with rust and one with clean metal. Never herd any results.   Aaron    ________________________________ From: Johnson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, December 18, 2010 8:03:33 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc problems   As I said I've never sand blasted steel. I thought a pressure washed rapidly dried interior could be painted immediately due to 2 part epoxies being very surface tolerant. Aaron, what are your thoughts if after a rapid drying the surface was wiped with an evaporating reducer to remove this immediate surface rust? I wiped clean my entire 36' hull, deck and house by myself with reducer using solvent proof paper towels I bought in huge rolls from BC Transit's supplier. When the towels stopped coming up black I painted. But my hull is aluminum. Two or 3 people could wipe down an interior on a steel 36 pretty fast. The reason I suggested pressure washing was to remove the dust from the blasting and to wash out left over sand. Even epoxy paint doesn't stick to dust. After xmas I'm going to sand then pressure wash some steel, blow dry it, and epoxy prime it and paint it and leave it outside in the yard and see what happens. I will do the sea water experiment also. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > Mickey > If you wash the steel after blasting then it will rust immediately and the > primer will fail under the paint what a mess it would be. > Aaron > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Johnson > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sat, December 18, 2010 3:03:14 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc problems > >   > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > > > > re zinc problems -- we have to paint buses and coaches which have a number of > > >different surfaces -- roof --plastic --front and rear plastic > > > > > > ****************************************************************** > > There's always a ton of discussion here regarding keeping paint on, zinc > spraying, galvanizing and or protecting steel. I have been really impressed >with > > 2 part epoxy especially Steelcote epoxy. I've used it now on two different > boats. > > The next time I mix up a batch I will coat a piece of steel with 2 coats of the > > primer and two coats of the paint. > > > The only prep I will do is sanding the steel to give it some tooth. I will then > > put the piece in a sealed 5 gallon pail of fine Comox sea water and will post > the pictures here @ 6 and 12 months. > > I would like to say that piece of steel will look the same a year later. > > I have never sandblasted steel inside a boat (sounds like a sh-t job) but it > seems to me that if hull and framing are done then u could sandblast, vacuum, > blow it out, wash it all out with a pressure washer thru a drain hole, dry it > with rented blowers and spray in epoxy primer then moucho epoxy paint and u >will > > have a really well protected hull inside. I know this is exactly how I would > have done it if I built in steel. > > > Epoxy is expensive but everything I have read says your steel boat most likely > will start to go bad on you first in the bilges. A half dozen good coats of > epoxy sprayed inside will go a long way to preserving the steel. > > An idea might be to buy good epoxy and then for a year buy a cheaper scotch til > > u have the paint money back. I would never scrimp where the scrimping would >cost > > me more in time, money and back ache later than doing it properly the first > time. I can't think of anything worse that inaccessible rusting bilges. > > My cockpit sole has about 10 coats of paint sprayed wet on wet. So far no > lifting, cracking etc. Why so thick? It will have high traffic and will always > be wet or drying here in BC. I don't want to be redoing it all the time or > hassling people about shoes. > > I feel the same way about the inside of hulls and other hard to reach places. > Overdo the protection the first time when u can't get at it a second time. I > wouldn't like being headfirst in the bilge with a scraper and paint cause @ 240 > > I don't fit in there too well. Repainting the deck and or hull exterior is just > > work but redoing 20' of bilges, sh-t, I'd rather be tasered or have 3 wives. > > > I am now going out to the workshop to clean a sword so I have it ready to fall > on when Brent replies. If I survive I will repair the wound with Steelcote > epoxy. > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24813|24800|2010-12-19 06:49:39|Denis Buggy|Re: zinc problems|l dear all who paint -- I have to approach painting from a different angle as if there is even the slightest error it can cost thousands to correct . to minimise expense you have to introduce standards and there is the answer -- do you use folklore standards or do you trust the people who like you are legally liable for the results -- we use AKZO NOBEL paints -- they are the best and have reached a market leader status world wide in the painting of boats- buses - commercials ect . I have to follow their data sheets with precision as should any problem arise I have free tech help to correct it as literally it must do what it says on the can . if you deviate even slightly from their instructions and materials you are finished not just for that job but you no longer have credibility and that will cost you . you cannot mix product and you would be laughed at if you used somebody's primer under their paint and it did not work out -- they would ask for a photo to use for their horror file to sell their paint system . I must use their etch primer on galvanize and aluminium as it is specified on the data sheet and I have never found them foolish -- they are always correct in their advice . all our vehicles have to withstand hot powerwashers each day -- 1500lbs of hot water sorts the men from the boys and only 2 pack is able to take it . THE BEST SOURCE OF ADVICE IN THE WORLD IS THE AWLGRIP SITE -- it has videos of what to do and 77 pages of instructions under GENERAL GUIDELINES if you follow what they say on the best site in the world of the best paint in the world you will not go wrong --- what paint do the builders of the 150 million floating palaces use -- when their necks and reputations are on the line and where the client could not care less about cost and only wanted the best the very best available. regards Denis Buggy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24814|24800|2010-12-19 10:21:48|Ben Okopnik|Re: zinc problems|On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 11:34:46PM -0800, Aaron Williams wrote: > I think someone (Gird?) started an experiment with Rust Bullit one with rust and > one with clean metal. Never herd any results.   I don't know who else might have tried it, but I did. Followed their instructions to the letter, religiously. The results were pretty bad: both the rusty and the sandblasted versions peeled off at about the same time (about 1.5-2 years later) - and since the RB essentially formed a hard plastic coating under the paint, it all peeled off in large chunks. Seems like it just couldn't keep up with the expansion/contraction of the steel underneath. At this point, I've given up on all the expensive "specialty" solutions (and I've tried a variety of them.) The *only* things I've found to work - and perhaps it's my own lack of painting ability showing, but these two methods _do_ work for me - are: 1) chip off all the rust (no need to grind off the surface stuff; just make sure that you're down to solid metal), and prime with Corroseal, OR 2) what I call "Brent's method" (even though I may have misunderstood what Brent actually wrote about it): grind off every last trace of rust, wash the steel with vinegar, and prime with high-percentage zinc primer. Rustoleum actually makes a pretty good one, despite most of their other paints not being worth a crap for "rust prevention". In either case, as soon as the primer is dry, I put down three coats of epoxy (with each previous coat still a bit tacky) and then a finish coat. Everything that I've done that way is still holding fine several years later. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24815|24800|2010-12-19 11:56:56|Aaron Williams|Re: zinc problems|Denis Awlgrip does have great site as well as International. I think between the two they would answer anyones questions about marine coatings. Thanks Aaron ________________________________ From: Denis Buggy To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, December 19, 2010 2:49:48 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: zinc problems   l dear all who paint -- I have to approach painting from a different angle as if there is even the slightest error it can cost thousands to correct . to minimise expense you have to introduce standards and there is the answer -- do you use folklore standards or do you trust the people who like you are legally liable for the results -- we use AKZO NOBEL paints -- they are the best and have reached a market leader status world wide in the painting of boats- buses - commercials ect . I have to follow their data sheets with precision as should any problem arise I have free tech help to correct it as literally it must do what it says on the can . if you deviate even slightly from their instructions and materials you are finished not just for that job but you no longer have credibility and that will cost you . you cannot mix product and you would be laughed at if you used somebody's primer under their paint and it did not work out -- they would ask for a photo to use for their horror file to sell their paint system . I must use their etch primer on galvanize and aluminium as it is specified on the data sheet and I have never found them foolish -- they are always correct in their advice . all our vehicles have to withstand hot powerwashers each day -- 1500lbs of hot water sorts the men from the boys and only 2 pack is able to take it . THE BEST SOURCE OF ADVICE IN THE WORLD IS THE AWLGRIP SITE -- it has videos of what to do and 77 pages of instructions under GENERAL GUIDELINES if you follow what they say on the best site in the world of the best paint in the world you will not go wrong --- what paint do the builders of the 150 million floating palaces use -- when their necks and reputations are on the line and where the client could not care less about cost and only wanted the best the very best available. regards Denis Buggy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24816|9779|2010-12-19 12:25:56|john dean|Composting head|Hello Hello I have been using that so called marine composting head for 4 years, it works fine. What makes it marine is the size, it had to fit down the conpanionway etc. If you have several friends over and they drink beer they pee in a bucket and overboard it without disturbing your neighbors. Cheers John --- On Wed, 12/15/10, rhko47 wrote: > From: rhko47 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Composting head > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 9:03 AM > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 04:21:35PM -0000, rhko47 > wrote: > > > In the files section there is a picture of the > Nonolet toilet. Looking > > > at http://www.de12ambachten.nl/eng-greentech/07-12%20diynonolet.html > > > How to make a DIY Nonolet, this system looks > easier for DIY > > > construction than an Airhead/Nature's Head type > of system, has no > > > moving parts, and uses simple, readily available > supplies (plastic > > > bags, biodegradable if you want, and paper) and > produces a smaller > > > volume of waste to dispose of (compressed dry > non-smelling feces and > > > paper, no peat).  Does anyone have any > experience with this system? > > > > No experience with it, but I read about it while > researching which > > composting head I should buy. They even have what they > call a "marine > > version" - > > > > http://www.de12ambachten.nl/engnonolethow.html > > > > However, it's pretty clear that they a) don't > understand that boats > > pitch, and b) they missed the point of the primary > school physics demo > > with the water level in a hose when the ends are held > at different > > levels (the overboard drainage in their boat picture > is higher than the > > top of the Nonolet. :) > > > > It's certainly possible that this system would work on > a boat - the > > principle sounds interesting - but I, for one, > wouldn't want to > > discover... um, let's just call them the bugs in their > system; finding > > out that it fails in rough weather just as a > three-day-long storm is > > starting would be a Bad Thing. > > > > > > -- > >                >         OKOPNIK CONSULTING > >         Custom Computing > Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom > programming > >   443-250-7895   http://okopnik.com   http://twitter.com/okopnik > > I don't place too much faith in their drawings of a > marine  installation, or in their assertion that urine > which has passed over feces can legally or safely be piped > into the sink outlet.  (The illustration does seem to > assume a pump that lifts the combined liquid waste to > discharge overboard above the waterline.)  For one > thing, doing that would provide a direct path for spread of > organisms from the contaminated urine back up to your sink > drain and then all too easily to food preparation > surfaces.  I would collect the urine in a holding tank > (as Airhead and NH do), and pump it or dump it when > appropriate.  > > The big advantage would be in the handling or the > solids.  No peat or coir to buy or store, no need to > hydrate the coir (which, incidentally, is cheaply available > in the garden section of Menards - like Home Depot), no > guessing about the remaining capacity of the peat/coir to > handle more feces (and a bucket with a kitchen trash bag > would hold a *lot* of compressed/dried stool before  > being obviously full), no having to instruct guests  > not to urinate into the hole for the solids, no wondering if > the agitator is going to fail at some point (and the > agitator is the most problematic part of the Airhead/NH for > DIY construction). > > Just how do you envision that the system might "fail" in a > pitching boat, assuming that the holding tank is below the > urine collection drain? > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! > Groups Links > > >     origamiboats-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > > | 24817|24800|2010-12-20 00:06:38|ursus_222|Re: zinc problems|Hello Anyone tried the POR 15 on small patches of rust, it is a four step process from what I have read. I bought the Manotic which is in Cowichan Bay, it does have some rust in areas but I won't know how extensive until I get it up on the hard and do thickness testing. Thanks Vic. http://www.canada-por15.com/four-step-process.htm --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > Denis > > Awlgrip does have great site as well as International. I think between the two > they would answer anyones questions about marine coatings. > Thanks > Aaron > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Denis Buggy > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sun, December 19, 2010 2:49:48 AM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: zinc problems > >   > l > > dear all who paint -- > I have to approach painting from a different angle as if there is even the > slightest error it can cost thousands to correct . > to minimise expense you have to introduce standards and there is the answer -- > do you use folklore standards or do you trust the people who like you are > legally liable for the results -- > we use AKZO NOBEL paints -- they are the best and have reached a market leader > status world wide in the painting of boats- buses - commercials ect . > I have to follow their data sheets with precision as should any problem arise I > have free tech help to correct it as literally it must do what it says on the > can . > if you deviate even slightly from their instructions and materials you are > finished not just for that job but you no longer have credibility and that will > cost you . > you cannot mix product and you would be laughed at if you used somebody's primer > under their paint and it did not work out -- they would ask for a photo to use > for their horror file to sell their paint system . > I must use their etch primer on galvanize and aluminium as it is specified on > the data sheet and I have never found them foolish -- they are always correct in > their advice . > all our vehicles have to withstand hot powerwashers each day -- 1500lbs of hot > water sorts the men from the boys and only 2 pack is able to take it . > THE BEST SOURCE OF ADVICE IN THE WORLD IS THE AWLGRIP SITE -- it has videos of > what to do and 77 pages of instructions under GENERAL GUIDELINES > > if you follow what they say on the best site in the world of the best paint in > the world you will not go wrong --- what paint do the builders of the 150 > million floating palaces use -- when their necks and reputations are on the line > and where the client could not care less about cost and only wanted the best the > very best available. > regards Denis Buggy > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24818|24758|2010-12-20 09:05:49|jim dorey|Re: Hole in the hull?|brentswain38 wrote: > > not having built one, being focused on steam powerplants lately, i'd > > say, if there's holes for mounting external ballast, that'd be a good > > candidate. > > > All ballast is internal . Good welds, being 100% the strength of the > surrounding metal, there will be no loss of strength from the hole. and since you mention a hole in the hull for passing ballast in... that'd work for cleanout.| 24819|9779|2010-12-20 09:13:28|rhko47|Re: Composting head|Thank you! That is just the sort of non-speculative real-world experience-based information I was looking for. By the way, the Nonolet in concept is not really a composting head, just a non-smelling head. Supposedly, true composting of human waste takes about two years, and even the Airhead/NH approach does not produce fully composted waste. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, john dean wrote: > > Hello Hello > > I have been using that so called marine composting head for 4 years, it works fine. What makes it marine is the size, it had to fit down the conpanionway etc. If you have several friends over and they drink beer they pee in a bucket and overboard it without disturbing your neighbors. > > Cheers John > --- On Wed, 12/15/10, rhko47 wrote: > > > From: rhko47 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Composting head > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 9:03 AM > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > > Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 04:21:35PM -0000, rhko47 > > wrote: > > > > In the files section there is a picture of the > > Nonolet toilet. Looking > > > > at http://www.de12ambachten.nl/eng-greentech/07-12%20diynonolet.html > > > > How to make a DIY Nonolet, this system looks > > easier for DIY > > > > construction than an Airhead/Nature's Head type > > of system, has no > > > > moving parts, and uses simple, readily available > > supplies (plastic > > > > bags, biodegradable if you want, and paper) and > > produces a smaller > > > > volume of waste to dispose of (compressed dry > > non-smelling feces and > > > > paper, no peat).  Does anyone have any > > experience with this system? > > > > > > No experience with it, but I read about it while > > researching which > > > composting head I should buy. They even have what they > > call a "marine > > > version" - > > > > > > http://www.de12ambachten.nl/engnonolethow.html > > > > > > However, it's pretty clear that they a) don't > > understand that boats > > > pitch, and b) they missed the point of the primary > > school physics demo > > > with the water level in a hose when the ends are held > > at different > > > levels (the overboard drainage in their boat picture > > is higher than the > > > top of the Nonolet. :) > > > > > > It's certainly possible that this system would work on > > a boat - the > > > principle sounds interesting - but I, for one, > > wouldn't want to > > > discover... um, let's just call them the bugs in their > > system; finding > > > out that it fails in rough weather just as a > > three-day-long storm is > > > starting would be a Bad Thing. > > > > > > > > > -- > > >                > >         OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > >         Custom Computing > > Solutions For Your Business > > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom > > programming > > >   443-250-7895   http://okopnik.com   http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > I don't place too much faith in their drawings of a > > marine  installation, or in their assertion that urine > > which has passed over feces can legally or safely be piped > > into the sink outlet.  (The illustration does seem to > > assume a pump that lifts the combined liquid waste to > > discharge overboard above the waterline.)  For one > > thing, doing that would provide a direct path for spread of > > organisms from the contaminated urine back up to your sink > > drain and then all too easily to food preparation > > surfaces.  I would collect the urine in a holding tank > > (as Airhead and NH do), and pump it or dump it when > > appropriate.  > > > > The big advantage would be in the handling or the > > solids.  No peat or coir to buy or store, no need to > > hydrate the coir (which, incidentally, is cheaply available > > in the garden section of Menards - like Home Depot), no > > guessing about the remaining capacity of the peat/coir to > > handle more feces (and a bucket with a kitchen trash bag > > would hold a *lot* of compressed/dried stool before  > > being obviously full), no having to instruct guests  > > not to urinate into the hole for the solids, no wondering if > > the agitator is going to fail at some point (and the > > agitator is the most problematic part of the Airhead/NH for > > DIY construction). > > > > Just how do you envision that the system might "fail" in a > > pitching boat, assuming that the holding tank is below the > > urine collection drain? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! > > Groups Links > > > > > >     origamiboats-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > | 24820|24800|2010-12-20 13:41:34|mkriley48|Re: zinc problems|hi, I was the sole maintenance on a 114 foot dutch built steel power boat from late 40's and used pettit's rustlock in all kinds of situations including underwater never had any problems what so ever. !!!results are proportional to the effort put into prep!!! This is a old time product around for at least 40 years, do not confuse this with "rust bulls***t". The product is used a lot commercially under different names. Google it mike --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 11:34:46PM -0800, Aaron Williams wrote: > > > I think someone (Gird?) started an experiment with Rust Bullit one with rust and > > one with clean metal. Never herd any results.   > > I don't know who else might have tried it, but I did. Followed their > instructions to the letter, religiously. The results were pretty bad: > both the rusty and the sandblasted versions peeled off at about the same > time (about 1.5-2 years later) - and since the RB essentially formed a > hard plastic coating under the paint, it all peeled off in large chunks. > Seems like it just couldn't keep up with the expansion/contraction of > the steel underneath. > > At this point, I've given up on all the expensive "specialty" solutions > (and I've tried a variety of them.) The *only* things I've found to work > - and perhaps it's my own lack of painting ability showing, but these > two methods _do_ work for me - are: > > 1) chip off all the rust (no need to grind off the surface stuff; just > make sure that you're down to solid metal), and prime with Corroseal, OR > > 2) what I call "Brent's method" (even though I may have misunderstood > what Brent actually wrote about it): grind off every last trace of rust, > wash the steel with vinegar, and prime with high-percentage zinc primer. > Rustoleum actually makes a pretty good one, despite most of their other > paints not being worth a crap for "rust prevention". > > In either case, as soon as the primer is dry, I put down three coats of > epoxy (with each previous coat still a bit tacky) and then a finish > coat. Everything that I've done that way is still holding fine several > years later. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24821|24800|2010-12-20 16:45:52|brentswain38|Re: zinc problems|The paint in my cockpit kept wearing thin , until I gave it a thick coat of epoxy, put a layer of fine sand on the wet epoxy,let it kick off, swept the excess sand off, then gave it several more coats of epoxy, then enamel . There is no way I will wear thru the sand. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Johnson" wrote: > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > > > > re zinc problems -- we have to paint buses and coaches which have a number of different surfaces -- roof --plastic --front and rear plastic > > > > ****************************************************************** > > There's always a ton of discussion here regarding keeping paint on, zinc spraying, galvanizing and or protecting steel. I have been really impressed with 2 part epoxy especially Steelcote epoxy. I've used it now on two different boats. > > The next time I mix up a batch I will coat a piece of steel with 2 coats of the primer and two coats of the paint. > > The only prep I will do is sanding the steel to give it some tooth. I will then put the piece in a sealed 5 gallon pail of fine Comox sea water and will post the pictures here @ 6 and 12 months. > > I would like to say that piece of steel will look the same a year later. > > I have never sandblasted steel inside a boat (sounds like a sh-t job) but it seems to me that if hull and framing are done then u could sandblast, vacuum, blow it out, wash it all out with a pressure washer thru a drain hole, dry it with rented blowers and spray in epoxy primer then moucho epoxy paint and u will have a really well protected hull inside. I know this is exactly how I would have done it if I built in steel. > > Epoxy is expensive but everything I have read says your steel boat most likely will start to go bad on you first in the bilges. A half dozen good coats of epoxy sprayed inside will go a long way to preserving the steel. > > An idea might be to buy good epoxy and then for a year buy a cheaper scotch til u have the paint money back. I would never scrimp where the scrimping would cost me more in time, money and back ache later than doing it properly the first time. I can't think of anything worse that inaccessible rusting bilges. > > My cockpit sole has about 10 coats of paint sprayed wet on wet. So far no lifting, cracking etc. Why so thick? It will have high traffic and will always be wet or drying here in BC. I don't want to be redoing it all the time or hassling people about shoes. > > I feel the same way about the inside of hulls and other hard to reach places. Overdo the protection the first time when u can't get at it a second time. I wouldn't like being headfirst in the bilge with a scraper and paint cause @ 240 I don't fit in there too well. Repainting the deck and or hull exterior is just work but redoing 20' of bilges, sh-t, I'd rather be tasered or have 3 wives. > > I am now going out to the workshop to clean a sword so I have it ready to fall on when Brent replies. If I survive I will repair the wound with Steelcote epoxy. > | 24822|24800|2010-12-20 16:49:17|brentswain38|Re: zinc problems|Few of the boats made in BC by Foules or Fehr were ever painted with anything inside. They usualy have major rusting problems under the foam. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:03:14AM -0000, Johnson wrote: > > > > I have never sandblasted steel inside a boat (sounds like a sh-t job) > > but it seems to me that if hull and framing are done then u could > > sandblast, vacuum, blow it out, wash it all out with a pressure washer > > thru a drain hole, dry it with rented blowers and spray in epoxy > > primer then moucho epoxy paint and u will have a really well protected > > hull inside. I know this is exactly how I would have done it if I > > built in steel. > > This is the one thing that I wish to hell had been done on Ulysses; I > wouldn't have had to replate the hull if it had. The lower half of the > hull - just about from the waterline down, plus about 2' up along the > stem - was rusted out (from the inside, of course; the outside was just > fine under the paint, until it finally rusted through and started > leaking in one spot.) > > The new plate was heavily painted before it went on. Not nearly as good > as 10 layers of epoxy, but a lot better than the original setup, which > looked like unpainted steel. Just for general info - the hull was > originally built in 4mm steel, and that lasted from 1979 until 2005, > when it finally sprang that leak. So, maybe 20 years of good service and > marginal for 5 more. I'm willing to bet that if it had been painted as > above, the steel would still be at its original thickness or close to > it. > > > Epoxy is expensive but everything I have read says your steel boat > > most likely will start to go bad on you first in the bilges. A half > > dozen good coats of epoxy sprayed inside will go a long way to > > preserving the steel. > > I'd say that's a really sound call. > > > An idea might be to buy good epoxy and then for a year buy a cheaper > > scotch til u have the paint money back. I would never scrimp where the > > scrimping would cost me more in time, money and back ache later than > > doing it properly the first time. I can't think of anything worse that > > inaccessible rusting bilges. > > There's such a thing as being smart-lazy - which to me means working > hard *now* so I can relax later - and then there's stupid-lazy (which I > try never to be), which means taking it easy now but half-killing > yourself, or wasting huge amounts of money, later. Painting your > bilges, no matter how hard it may be, is smart-lazy. > > > I feel the same way about the inside of hulls and other hard to reach > > places. Overdo the protection the first time when u can't get at it a > > second time. I wouldn't like being headfirst in the bilge with a > > scraper and paint cause @ 240 I don't fit in there too well. > > Repainting the deck and or hull exterior is just work but redoing 20' > > of bilges, sh-t, I'd rather be tasered or have 3 wives. > > [laugh] Even if you change that "or" to "and", it would still be the > right decision. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24823|24800|2010-12-20 16:52:21|brentswain38|Re: zinc problems|The vinegar wash is for Galvanized steel only, not for bare steel.It's to get the oxide off the galv. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 11:34:46PM -0800, Aaron Williams wrote: > > > I think someone (Gird?) started an experiment with Rust Bullit one with rust and > > one with clean metal. Never herd any results.   > > I don't know who else might have tried it, but I did. Followed their > instructions to the letter, religiously. The results were pretty bad: > both the rusty and the sandblasted versions peeled off at about the same > time (about 1.5-2 years later) - and since the RB essentially formed a > hard plastic coating under the paint, it all peeled off in large chunks. > Seems like it just couldn't keep up with the expansion/contraction of > the steel underneath. > > At this point, I've given up on all the expensive "specialty" solutions > (and I've tried a variety of them.) The *only* things I've found to work > - and perhaps it's my own lack of painting ability showing, but these > two methods _do_ work for me - are: > > 1) chip off all the rust (no need to grind off the surface stuff; just > make sure that you're down to solid metal), and prime with Corroseal, OR > > 2) what I call "Brent's method" (even though I may have misunderstood > what Brent actually wrote about it): grind off every last trace of rust, > wash the steel with vinegar, and prime with high-percentage zinc primer. > Rustoleum actually makes a pretty good one, despite most of their other > paints not being worth a crap for "rust prevention". > > In either case, as soon as the primer is dry, I put down three coats of > epoxy (with each previous coat still a bit tacky) and then a finish > coat. Everything that I've done that way is still holding fine several > years later. > > > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24824|24800|2010-12-20 19:11:05|Ben Okopnik|Re: zinc problems|On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:52:12PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > The vinegar wash is for Galvanized steel only, not for bare steel.It's to get the oxide off the galv. [laugh] I just *knew* I'd screwed something up - that's the usual story with me and paint. Doesn't seem to have harmed anything, though. I guess I'll just skip that step the next time. -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24825|24825|2010-12-20 19:20:50|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|origami all winter in the ice|Brent, how do you think would your BS36 design withstand a winter anchored in the ice, let say in a small bay somewhere in the north? I know of some hull shape round enough so that the ice will lift the boat as it form around it. Martin.| 24826|24826|2010-12-21 08:52:31|Max|boats built in BC by Fehr|Posted by: "brentswain38" brentswain38@... brentswain38 > Few of the boats made in BC by Foules or Fehr were ever painted with > anything inside. They usualy have major rusting problems under the > foam. Hi Brent (and group), I just read your post about Fehr boats built in BC having no paint on the inside. I bought a Fehr boat last year ("Gazelle" 42, cost me three grand), without more than a visual inspection. It was built in 1987 and has no leaks so far. If what you're saying is correct, then it's probably unpainted inside... I'm looking at about 10 grand of repairs/refits on the boat before it sailable. The interior is pretty nice, the engine is reputed to run. I wonder if I'm wasting my time and money on that boat because of interior corrosion problems likely to pop up in the future. What's the typical failure mode of a steel boat unpainted on the inside? Will all the plates turn to cheese at the same time, leaving me swimming, or will it start with small problems and progressively get worse over a few years? I'm thinking it might be more economic to keep on trucking with this boat and then patch/replate the bottom as necessary. Something tells me that'd probably be far cheaper than building a new boat + interior. In the worst-case scenario, if the hull just becomes too rotten to salvage, I could tear out all of the outfits, scrap the old hull, and build anew or find another stripped used boat. Thoughts? Regards, -Max PS: The US registry lien seems to sorting itself out.| 24827|24826|2010-12-21 10:15:15|David Frantz|Re: boats built in BC by Fehr|I'm no expert here but the first thing I would do is to remove the foam in a few key places to check for rust. You need to inspect to make an informed decision. Either way you might want to consider striping the foam and painting. That is if your inspection finds nothing serious. David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. On Dec 21, 2010, at 8:52 AM, Max wrote: > Posted by: "brentswain38" brentswain38@... brentswain38 > >> Few of the boats made in BC by Foules or Fehr were ever painted with >> anything inside. They usualy have major rusting problems under the >> foam. > > Hi Brent (and group), > > I just read your post about Fehr boats built in BC having no paint on the inside. I bought a Fehr boat last year ("Gazelle" 42, cost me three grand), without more than a visual inspection. It was built in 1987 and has no leaks so far. > > If what you're saying is correct, then it's probably unpainted inside... I'm looking at about 10 grand of repairs/refits on the boat before it sailable. The interior is pretty nice, the engine is reputed to run. I wonder if I'm wasting my time and money on that boat because of interior corrosion problems likely to pop up in the future. > > What's the typical failure mode of a steel boat unpainted on the inside? Will all the plates turn to cheese at the same time, leaving me swimming, or will it start with small problems and progressively get worse over a few years? > > I'm thinking it might be more economic to keep on trucking with this boat and then patch/replate the bottom as necessary. Something tells me that'd probably be far cheaper than building a new boat + interior. In the worst-case scenario, if the hull just becomes too rotten to salvage, I could tear out all of the outfits, scrap the old hull, and build anew or find another stripped used boat. > > Thoughts? > > Regards, > -Max > > PS: The US registry lien seems to sorting itself out. > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24828|24826|2010-12-21 10:37:45|Aaron Williams|Re: boats built in BC by Fehr|You could get someone to do a ultra sound inspection of the hull.  Canspec, Team or Acuren are three companies that do that on Pipelines. A couple of hours would give you the information you need to be able to make the best descision. I may save you the trouble of stripping the foam on something not worth saving. Aaron ________________________________ From: Max To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, December 21, 2010 4:52:29 AM Subject: [origamiboats] boats built in BC by Fehr   Posted by: "brentswain38" brentswain38@... brentswain38 > Few of the boats made in BC by Foules or Fehr were ever painted with > anything inside. They usualy have major rusting problems under the > foam. Hi Brent (and group), I just read your post about Fehr boats built in BC having no paint on the inside. I bought a Fehr boat last year ("Gazelle" 42, cost me three grand), without more than a visual inspection. It was built in 1987 and has no leaks so far. If what you're saying is correct, then it's probably unpainted inside... I'm looking at about 10 grand of repairs/refits on the boat before it sailable. The interior is pretty nice, the engine is reputed to run. I wonder if I'm wasting my time and money on that boat because of interior corrosion problems likely to pop up in the future. What's the typical failure mode of a steel boat unpainted on the inside? Will all the plates turn to cheese at the same time, leaving me swimming, or will it start with small problems and progressively get worse over a few years? I'm thinking it might be more economic to keep on trucking with this boat and then patch/replate the bottom as necessary. Something tells me that'd probably be far cheaper than building a new boat + interior. In the worst-case scenario, if the hull just becomes too rotten to salvage, I could tear out all of the outfits, scrap the old hull, and build anew or find another stripped used boat. Thoughts? Regards, -Max PS: The US registry lien seems to sorting itself out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24829|24826|2010-12-21 16:16:27|alfredo.nannetti@libero.it|Re: boats built in BC by Fehr|Max, is your interior boat wet or dry? Do you have water in the bildge? Can you see any rust getting out somewhere? Those are the first things to look at. alfredo > I'm no expert here but the first thing I would do is to remove the foam in a few key places to check for rust. You need to inspect to make an informed decision. > > Either way you might want to consider striping the foam and painting. That is if your inspection finds nothing serious. > > David A Frantz > websterindustro4at4mac.com > > Sent from my iPhone. > > On Dec 21, 2010, at 8:52 AM, Max wrote: > > > Posted by: "brentswain38" brentswain38@... brentswain38 > > > >> Few of the boats made in BC by Foules or Fehr were ever painted with > >> anything inside. They usualy have major rusting problems under the > >> foam. > > > > Hi Brent (and group), > > > > I just read your post about Fehr boats built in BC having no paint on the inside. I bought a Fehr boat last year ("Gazelle" 42, cost me three grand), without more than a visual inspection. It was built in 1987 and has no leaks so far. > > > > If what you're saying is correct, then it's probably unpainted inside... I'm looking at about 10 grand of repairs/refits on the boat before it sailable. The interior is pretty nice, the engine is reputed to run. I wonder if I'm wasting my time and money on that boat because of interior corrosion problems likely to pop up in the future. > > > > What's the typical failure mode of a steel boat unpainted on the inside? Will all the plates turn to cheese at the same time, leaving me swimming, or will it start with small problems and progressively get worse over a few years? > > > > I'm thinking it might be more economic to keep on trucking with this boat and then patch/replate the bottom as necessary. Something tells me that'd probably be far cheaper than building a new boat + interior. In the worst-case scenario, if the hull just becomes too rotten to salvage, I could tear out all of the outfits, scrap the old hull, and build anew or find another stripped used boat. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Regards, > > -Max > > > > PS: The US registry lien seems to sorting itself out. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > | 24830|24826|2010-12-21 21:07:57|Max|Re: boats built in BC by Fehr|Hi Alfredo, David and Aaron, Thanks for the replies! When I bought the boat, it was still sitting in the water (it's out, now). Its bilges didn't need pumping, as far as I know. There were definitely traces of rust and dampness, though. I thought this was normal, a result of condensation in a Seattle winter. I'll follow the recommendations in the other posts as soon as I get back to the boat in early March. I'll take out some foam below the water-line, to see the condition of the hull underneath. Taking it all out to paint it would be a huge job, since the interior is in the way. There's some sort of thin plywood on top of the foam in most places, so that would all need eventual tearing-up. I guess I could do that in pieces while living aboard. The ultra-sound idea is interesting. I'll check prices. Otherwise, there's Brent's method of hammer and punch. A few taps below the waterline should tell me if the hull is paper-thin. If I understand correctly, the corrosion is caused by condensed moisture trapped by the foam against the bare steel. Does this mean it would mainly affect the plating, or are frames typically affected as well? Regards, -Maxime --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "alfredo\.nannetti\@...\.it" wrote: > > Max, is your interior boat wet or dry? Do you have water in the bildge? Can you see any rust getting out somewhere? > Those are the first things to look at. > alfredo | 24831|24826|2010-12-22 06:04:53|martin demers|Re: boats built in BC by Fehr|you can do a thickness test yourself by buying a thickness meter for around $200.00 or less on ebay, there are a few people selling that. This is what I did for my boat. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: maxcamirand@... Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 02:07:53 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: boats built in BC by Fehr Hi Alfredo, David and Aaron, Thanks for the replies! When I bought the boat, it was still sitting in the water (it's out, now). Its bilges didn't need pumping, as far as I know. There were definitely traces of rust and dampness, though. I thought this was normal, a result of condensation in a Seattle winter. I'll follow the recommendations in the other posts as soon as I get back to the boat in early March. I'll take out some foam below the water-line, to see the condition of the hull underneath. Taking it all out to paint it would be a huge job, since the interior is in the way. There's some sort of thin plywood on top of the foam in most places, so that would all need eventual tearing-up. I guess I could do that in pieces while living aboard. The ultra-sound idea is interesting. I'll check prices. Otherwise, there's Brent's method of hammer and punch. A few taps below the waterline should tell me if the hull is paper-thin. If I understand correctly, the corrosion is caused by condensed moisture trapped by the foam against the bare steel. Does this mean it would mainly affect the plating, or are frames typically affected as well? Regards, -Maxime --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "alfredo\.nannetti\@...\.it" wrote: > > Max, is your interior boat wet or dry? Do you have water in the bildge? Can you see any rust getting out somewhere? > Those are the first things to look at. > alfredo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24832|24826|2010-12-22 22:58:11|Aaron Williams|Re: boats built in BC by Fehr|Maxime Anywhere moisture can get on bare steel it will cause corrosion. Yes it will attack the frames as well but the frames are likely to be thicker. Aaron ________________________________ From: Max To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, December 21, 2010 5:07:53 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: boats built in BC by Fehr   Hi Alfredo, David and Aaron, Thanks for the replies! When I bought the boat, it was still sitting in the water (it's out, now). Its bilges didn't need pumping, as far as I know. There were definitely traces of rust and dampness, though. I thought this was normal, a result of condensation in a Seattle winter. I'll follow the recommendations in the other posts as soon as I get back to the boat in early March. I'll take out some foam below the water-line, to see the condition of the hull underneath. Taking it all out to paint it would be a huge job, since the interior is in the way. There's some sort of thin plywood on top of the foam in most places, so that would all need eventual tearing-up. I guess I could do that in pieces while living aboard. The ultra-sound idea is interesting. I'll check prices. Otherwise, there's Brent's method of hammer and punch. A few taps below the waterline should tell me if the hull is paper-thin. If I understand correctly, the corrosion is caused by condensed moisture trapped by the foam against the bare steel. Does this mean it would mainly affect the plating, or are frames typically affected as well? Regards, -Maxime --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "alfredo\.nannetti\@...\.it" wrote: > > Max, is your interior boat wet or dry? Do you have water in the bildge? Can you >see any rust getting out somewhere? > Those are the first things to look at. > alfredo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24833|24825|2010-12-23 17:22:43|brentswain38|Re: origami all winter in the ice|I once got frozen in five inches of ice and had to ram my way out thru a quarter mile of five inch ice. No problem. The only place the paint came off was the centreline and the leading edges of the keels. I had to back up and hit it at hull speed. The first nite I moored at the front end of the lead, a big mistake, as that let the ice freeze behind me , making it hard to get started the next morning. After that I moored at the back of the lead, letting me get up to hull speed the next morning before hitting solid ice. I don't think you would have any problem mooring in protected water in ice. Boats wintering over in the arctic, for some reason, tend to get lower and lower in the ice over the winter. I think having a few points around the hu, rigged with acorn nuts to bolt lifting plates on to put a hydraulic jack onto the ice would let you jack the boat up from time to time as needed. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > Brent, > > how do you think would your BS36 design withstand a winter anchored in the ice, let say in a small bay somewhere in the north? > I know of some hull shape round enough so that the ice will lift the boat as it form around it. > > Martin. > | 24834|24826|2010-12-23 17:28:52|brentswain38|Re: boats built in BC by Fehr|Drag your fingernails over the foam and listen for the hollow sound where it has separated from the steel. That is where you should check for corrosion, first. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > Maxime > > Anywhere moisture can get on bare steel it will cause corrosion. Yes it will > attack the frames as well but the frames are likely to be thicker. > > Aaron > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Max > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tue, December 21, 2010 5:07:53 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: boats built in BC by Fehr > >   > > > Hi Alfredo, David and Aaron, > > Thanks for the replies! > > When I bought the boat, it was still sitting in the water (it's out, now). Its > bilges didn't need pumping, as far as I know. There were definitely traces of > rust and dampness, though. I thought this was normal, a result of condensation > in a Seattle winter. > > I'll follow the recommendations in the other posts as soon as I get back to the > boat in early March. I'll take out some foam below the water-line, to see the > condition of the hull underneath. Taking it all out to paint it would be a huge > job, since the interior is in the way. There's some sort of thin plywood on top > of the foam in most places, so that would all need eventual tearing-up. I guess > I could do that in pieces while living aboard. > > The ultra-sound idea is interesting. I'll check prices. Otherwise, there's > Brent's method of hammer and punch. A few taps below the waterline should tell > me if the hull is paper-thin. > > If I understand correctly, the corrosion is caused by condensed moisture trapped > by the foam against the bare steel. Does this mean it would mainly affect the > plating, or are frames typically affected as well? > > Regards, > -Maxime > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "alfredo\.nannetti\@...\.it" > wrote: > > > > Max, is your interior boat wet or dry? Do you have water in the bildge? Can you > >see any rust getting out somewhere? > > Those are the first things to look at. > > alfredo > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24835|24825|2010-12-24 01:56:12|Matt Malone|Re: origami all winter in the ice|A winter in ice... Too many variables for me to feel comfy about it if I were not around, living on it or looking at it twice a day out my livingroom window. It is not the ice itself that seems a problem, but the movement of wind-blown ice. Once the ice is thick, it is really hard, as Brent's story illustrates, to change position if the mooring location does not seem as good as it did at first. I think we have all seen photos of ice piled 10 feet high 100 yards inland with the wrong wind conditions. I have also seen well-anchored stuff pulled out away from shore, again, with the wrong wind and thick ice. An anchor chain good for a 36 foot boat is not so good for a 10-20 acre chunk of ice. And the pull may not be like wind, straight on the bow for a bow-moored boat. While moored by the bow, the boat might be pulled or pushed sideways, locked in ice. If I knew the bay well, and it was out my living room window then, yes, I would probably try it. There are bubblers that can be put around the boat making the ice slushy instead of solid. Bubblers are used in Lake Ontario marinas for boats that stay in in the winter -- most are live-aboards. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 22:22:42 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: origami all winter in the ice I once got frozen in five inches of ice and had to ram my way out thru a quarter mile of five inch ice. No problem. The only place the paint came off was the centreline and the leading edges of the keels. I had to back up and hit it at hull speed. The first nite I moored at the front end of the lead, a big mistake, as that let the ice freeze behind me , making it hard to get started the next morning. After that I moored at the back of the lead, letting me get up to hull speed the next morning before hitting solid ice. I don't think you would have any problem mooring in protected water in ice. Boats wintering over in the arctic, for some reason, tend to get lower and lower in the ice over the winter. I think having a few points around the hu, rigged with acorn nuts to bolt lifting plates on to put a hydraulic jack onto the ice would let you jack the boat up from time to time as needed. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > Brent, > > how do you think would your BS36 design withstand a winter anchored in the ice, let say in a small bay somewhere in the north? > I know of some hull shape round enough so that the ice will lift the boat as it form around it. > > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24836|24825|2010-12-24 06:43:12|martin demers|Re: origami all winter in the ice|In my question, I meant if you live IN your boat all winter, go see "vagabond.fr" Martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: m_j_malone@... > Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 01:52:18 -0500 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: origami all winter in the ice > > > > A winter in ice... Too many variables for me to feel comfy about it if I were not around, living on it or looking at it twice a day out my livingroom window. It is not the ice itself that seems a problem, but the movement of wind-blown ice. Once the ice is thick, it is really hard, as Brent's story illustrates, to change position if the mooring location does not seem as good as it did at first. I think we have all seen photos of ice piled 10 feet high 100 yards inland with the wrong wind conditions. I have also seen well-anchored stuff pulled out away from shore, again, with the wrong wind and thick ice. An anchor chain good for a 36 foot boat is not so good for a 10-20 acre chunk of ice. And the pull may not be like wind, straight on the bow for a bow-moored boat. While moored by the bow, the boat might be pulled or pushed sideways, locked in ice. If I knew the bay well, and it was out my living room window then, yes, I would probably try it. > > There are bubblers that can be put around the boat making the ice slushy instead of solid. Bubblers are used in Lake Ontario marinas for boats that stay in in the winter -- most are live-aboards. > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 22:22:42 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: origami all winter in the ice > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I once got frozen in five inches of ice and had to ram my way out thru a quarter mile of five inch ice. No problem. The only place the paint came off was the centreline and the leading edges of the keels. I had to back up and hit it at hull speed. The first nite I moored at the front end of the lead, a big mistake, as that let the ice freeze behind me , making it hard to get started the next morning. After that I moored at the back of the lead, letting me get up to hull speed the next morning before hitting solid ice. > > I don't think you would have any problem mooring in protected water in ice. Boats wintering over in the arctic, for some reason, tend to get lower and lower in the ice over the winter. I think having a few points around the hu, rigged with acorn nuts to bolt lifting plates on to put a hydraulic jack onto the ice would let you jack the boat up from time to time as needed. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > how do you think would your BS36 design withstand a winter anchored in the ice, let say in a small bay somewhere in the north? > > > I know of some hull shape round enough so that the ice will lift the boat as it form around it. > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24837|24837|2010-12-24 13:28:38|John Waalkes|worth remembering quote from George Washington|Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:02:29 +0000 From: no-reply@... To: Subject: Founder's Quote Daily "There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favours from Nation to Nation. 'Tis an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard." --George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796 Follow The Patriot Post: You have received this email because you are subscribed to Founder's Quote Daily, a service of The Patriot Post, the conservative journal of record. To subscribe to Founder's Quote Daily and The Patriot Post, link to http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/. To manage your subscription or to unsubscribe, link to http://patriotpost.us/manage/ and log in with your email address. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24838|24825|2010-12-24 15:06:09|brentswain38|Re: origami all winter in the ice|I live in my boat in BC all year round. I hang out in drying anchorages, but when the icy outflows come, I head for deep water, as the ocean keeps things from freezing.No problems . You will not have much problem with moving ice if you stick to tiny, almost landlocked bays, where there is not such a huge chunk of ice ,and it can't move very far. Surprisingly ,the ice has no effect on my half inch nylon , except to make it cleaner than it had been since new. Zero evidence of chafe. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > In my question, I meant if you live IN your boat all winter, > go see "vagabond.fr" > > Martin. > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: m_j_malone@... > > Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 01:52:18 -0500 > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: origami all winter in the ice > > > > > > > > A winter in ice... Too many variables for me to feel comfy about it if I were not around, living on it or looking at it twice a day out my livingroom window. It is not the ice itself that seems a problem, but the movement of wind-blown ice. Once the ice is thick, it is really hard, as Brent's story illustrates, to change position if the mooring location does not seem as good as it did at first. I think we have all seen photos of ice piled 10 feet high 100 yards inland with the wrong wind conditions. I have also seen well-anchored stuff pulled out away from shore, again, with the wrong wind and thick ice. An anchor chain good for a 36 foot boat is not so good for a 10-20 acre chunk of ice. And the pull may not be like wind, straight on the bow for a bow-moored boat. While moored by the bow, the boat might be pulled or pushed sideways, locked in ice. If I knew the bay well, and it was out my living room window then, yes, I would probably try it. > > > > There are bubblers that can be put around the boat making the ice slushy instead of solid. Bubblers are used in Lake Ontario marinas for boats that stay in in the winter -- most are live-aboards. > > > > Matt > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@... > > Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 22:22:42 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: origami all winter in the ice > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I once got frozen in five inches of ice and had to ram my way out thru a quarter mile of five inch ice. No problem. The only place the paint came off was the centreline and the leading edges of the keels. I had to back up and hit it at hull speed. The first nite I moored at the front end of the lead, a big mistake, as that let the ice freeze behind me , making it hard to get started the next morning. After that I moored at the back of the lead, letting me get up to hull speed the next morning before hitting solid ice. > > > > I don't think you would have any problem mooring in protected water in ice. Boats wintering over in the arctic, for some reason, tend to get lower and lower in the ice over the winter. I think having a few points around the hu, rigged with acorn nuts to bolt lifting plates on to put a hydraulic jack onto the ice would let you jack the boat up from time to time as needed. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > > > how do you think would your BS36 design withstand a winter anchored in the ice, let say in a small bay somewhere in the north? > > > > > I know of some hull shape round enough so that the ice will lift the boat as it form around it. > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24839|24839|2010-12-24 20:50:47|Johnson|Merry Christmas Everybody|I'm heading out the door right now to eat too much. But before I do I wanted to say Merry Christmas to all of u. Have a great time with your families. Drink and eat all u want. Drive safe and stay on board. Water's cold this time of year. I sent a letter to the North Pole asking for Anderson winches for all of u for Christmas and a thousand sales this year for Brent. I've got a new 20-200 fp's torque wrench under the tree for me. Lifetime warranty. I might sleep with it tomorrow night if the wife doesn't mind. It's a beauty. Enjoy!| 24840|24840|2010-12-25 02:10:46|Kim|Happy Christmas!|Hope you all have a wonderful Christmas, and an awesome New Year! :-) Cheers ... Kim.| 24841|24840|2010-12-25 10:23:52|scott|Re: Happy Christmas!|Merry Christmas Everyone!!! scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hope you all have a wonderful Christmas, and an awesome New Year! :-) > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > | 24842|24839|2010-12-27 12:00:38|Denis Buggy|Re: Merry Christmas Everybody|A HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM IRELAND A GREAT COUNTRY NEARLY RUINED BY CRACK COCAINE BANKERS -- SOME PEOPLE HAVE EARTHQUAKES - CHOLERA - TSUNAMIS - A "GREAT LEADER " I CANNOT REALLY COMPLAIN -- IF YOU HAVE NONE OF THE ABOVE -SMILE- SMILE- SMILE . Denis Buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: Johnson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2010 1:50 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Merry Christmas Everybody I'm heading out the door right now to eat too much. But before I do I wanted to say Merry Christmas to all of u. Have a great time with your families. Drink and eat all u want. Drive safe and stay on board. Water's cold this time of year. I sent a letter to the North Pole asking for Anderson winches for all of u for Christmas and a thousand sales this year for Brent. I've got a new 20-200 fp's torque wrench under the tree for me. Lifetime warranty. I might sleep with it tomorrow night if the wife doesn't mind. It's a beauty. Enjoy! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24843|24843|2010-12-28 18:28:28|John|Newbee|Hi all I am new where should I start????| 24844|24843|2010-12-28 19:46:06|Doug Jackson|Re: Newbee|Here is a sample pattern our of the files section. That might be a good start. "An Origamiboat model pattern " http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/AHoaTRnv1A_cOSURi6_gHK_1gxrfB9o9gthUZurDsd54PvkErjaCJkXzD3dvIy2QaCYD4EaYLSbM4m8_leeU8cQX008kB8x1brBq38ncap4/An%20Origamiboat%20model%20pattern Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: John To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 8:28:44 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Newbee Hi all I am new where should I start???? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24845|10998|2010-12-29 19:03:10|Jimbo|Re: Nice free charting/weather programs|I tried it out, Paul, and now have it installed on our Kelsall 12.  It is excellent and, although I am still learning, it looks great so far.   Together with this program, I bought a custom computer and an 800 mW WIFI antenna from Bob at www.islandtimepc.com .  The computer connects directly into the 12 V boat electrical system, has no fan to draw power, comes with 8 COM and 6 USB ports, and Bob kindly loaded up all the software and lots of free charts of the Caribbean and Pacific to use with OpenCPN.  I just wired it all in and turned it on.   The WIFI antenna picks up 30 wifi networks around here, as compared to just 2 from a laptop, and we have a router to set up our own boat network.  Once we start moving around and experimenting more, we will see how well it goes.  At the moment, the antenna is just sitting on the boom and it needs to go up the mast.   Cheers, Jim.   --- On Mon, 31/5/10, Paul Wilson wrote: From: Paul Wilson Subject: [origamiboats] Nice free charting/weather programs To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Monday, 31 May, 2010, 8:04 PM   I stumbled upon a really nice chartplotting program that is free. I have only just started playing with it but it looks pretty good. What I like about it is that it reads both raster and vector charts like Cmap and will also display weather (GRIB) files with ship traffic (AIS) decoding. http://sourceforge.net/projects/opencpn/ For GRIB files using an internet connection. A really nice program I have found is available at www.grib.us. Also free. Free is good! Cheers, Paul > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24846|24843|2011-01-01 19:17:29|John|Re: Newbee|Hmmmm dident get much from this????? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Here is a sample pattern our of the files section. That might be a good start. > "An Origamiboat model pattern " > > http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/AHoaTRnv1A_cOSURi6_gHK_1gxrfB9o9gthUZurDsd54PvkErjaCJkXzD3dvIy2QaCYD4EaYLSbM4m8_leeU8cQX008kB8x1brBq38ncap4/An%20Origamiboat%20model%20pattern > > > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: John > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 8:28:44 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Newbee > > > Hi all I am new where should I start???? > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24847|24843|2011-01-02 02:09:29|Doug Jackson|Re: Newbee|Alex has a video of Brent building a hull. Moon-flower of Moab http://www.moonflowerofmoab.com has good detail of a build. I have photos of Paul Liebenberg's build on my site: http://www.submarineboat.com/pauls_boat.htm and there are lots of past builders on this list, so if you're a little more forth coming with what you're looking for, I'm sure you'll find it. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: John To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 8:26:14 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Newbee Hmmmm dident get much from this????? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > Here is a sample pattern our of the files section. That might be a good start. > "An Origamiboat model pattern " > >http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/AHoaTRnv1A_cOSURi6_gHK_1gxrfB9o9gthUZurDsd54PvkErjaCJkXzD3dvIy2QaCYD4EaYLSbM4m8_leeU8cQX008kB8x1brBq38ncap4/An%20Origamiboat%20model%20pattern >n > > > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > ________________________________ > From: John > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 8:28:44 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Newbee > > > Hi all I am new where should I start???? > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24848|24843|2011-01-02 05:11:28|Kim|Re: Newbee|Hi John ... Probably the best place to start is Alex's site at http://www.freewebs.com/origamiboats/ which has lots of photos of Brent's 4 designs (which range from 26' to 40'), and descriptions of the origami build process. Contact details for Brent are also there. You can buy Alex's extremely excellent video there too (which I very highly recommend). Carl has a site with lots of photos and information on the construction of a Swain 36': http://www.moonflowerofmoab.com/ I'm keeping a photo log of my Swain 26' construction at http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht The files section of this group has many more photos and other information. As well, there's an extraordinary amount of valuable information in the 25,000 messages in this group. All Brent's designs are built using pretty well much the same procedures, and they all look pretty similar (except, of course, they vary in length). So what you learn about the construction of one size can be readily applied to another size in Brent's range. Hope this helps! Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote: > > Hi all I am new where should I start???? | 24849|24849|2011-01-02 08:30:27|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|leading edge pipe on skeg|Hi Brent, Is there a stuctural reason why you keep the leading edge pipe extend the skeg beside to align the skeg when welding it? Martin.| 24850|24850|2011-01-02 22:34:21|Doug Jackson|More Models & "Nuthin Wong"|We got a pretty good 1/8th scale, 2 chine model done now. Big enough to be a boat in its own. :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFOcA5E0sVc Has anyone been sailing with Clive on "Nuthin Wong"? We'd love to hear about it. (Offline if you like) We're going to try and get Kay (my wife) on-board for a month so she can make sure that this sailboat thing is really going to work for her. Doug ArgonautJr.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24851|24850|2011-01-02 22:55:02|Jimbo|Re: More Models & "Nuthin Wong"|We met Clive about 10 years ago in the Caribbean. He is a good bloke and very eccentric. Make sure you understand all about the "Long Drop"!! Tell Clive that he stills owes me a few drinks from the Soggy Dollar bar in Simpson Lagoon.... On 02/01/2011, at 10:34 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: We got a pretty good 1/8th scale, 2 chine model done now. Big enough to be a boat in its own. :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFOcA5E0sVc Has anyone been sailing with Clive on "Nuthin Wong"? We'd love to hear about it. (Offline if you like) We're going to try and get Kay (my wife) on-board for a month so she can make sure that this sailboat thing is really going to work for her. Doug ArgonautJr.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24852|24850|2011-01-02 23:08:47|Doug Jackson|Re: More Models & "Nuthin Wong"|Ha ha! Thanks Jimbo. We had to google "Long Drop". The images page make it quite clear. We lived in Ghana so that will not be an issue. It will be much more pleasant just having water. :) Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Jimbo To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Sun, January 2, 2011 9:55:01 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] More Models & "Nuthin Wong" We met Clive about 10 years ago in the Caribbean. He is a good bloke and very eccentric. Make sure you understand all about the "Long Drop"!! Tell Clive that he stills owes me a few drinks from the Soggy Dollar bar in Simpson Lagoon.... On 02/01/2011, at 10:34 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: We got a pretty good 1/8th scale, 2 chine model done now. Big enough to be a boat in its own. :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFOcA5E0sVc Has anyone been sailing with Clive on "Nuthin Wong"? We'd love to hear about it. (Offline if you like) We're going to try and get Kay (my wife) on-board for a month so she can make sure that this sailboat thing is really going to work for her. Doug ArgonautJr.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24853|24843|2011-01-03 10:55:19|Matt Malone|Truss Mast ?|In one of the images that flips through here: http://www.moonflowerofmoab.com/different%20boats.html There appears to be an orgami boat with a truss-mast. Like an antenna tower. I cannot find that picture on any of the links provided on moonflowerofmoab, so I ask, does anyone know about the boat with the truss mast, and how that mast worked out ? Thanks, Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24854|24843|2011-01-03 19:23:27|tyn_hau|Re: Truss Mast ?|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > In one of the images that flips through here: > > http://www.moonflowerofmoab.com/different%20boats.html > > There appears to be an orgami boat with a truss-mast. Like an antenna tower. > > I cannot find that picture on any of the links provided on moonflowerofmoab, so I ask, does anyone know about the boat with the truss mast, and how that mast worked out ? > > Thanks, > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Depending on how good your German is you might want to have a look here: http://www.yacht-mast.de/| 24855|24843|2011-01-04 09:40:39|Matt Malone|Re: Truss Mast ?|Danke ! ------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: albutat@... Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 00:23:18 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Truss Mast ? Depending on how good your German is you might want to have a look here: http://www.yacht-mast.de/ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > In one of the images that flips through here: > > http://www.moonflowerofmoab.com/different%20boats.html > > There appears to be an orgami boat with a truss-mast. Like an antenna tower. > > I cannot find that picture on any of the links provided on moonflowerofmoab, so I ask, does anyone know about the boat with the truss mast, and how that mast worked out ? > > Thanks, > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24856|24850|2011-01-05 18:16:10|Barney Treadway|Re: More Models & "Nuthin Wong"|Doug, what are the specs on your junk? Whose design? I'm zero'ing in on about a 55 footer and would love to hear anything and everything on your steel usage, costs etc. These vids are great too, thanks for the effort. Barney On 1/2/2011 8:34 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > We got a pretty good 1/8th scale, 2 chine model done now. Big enough > to be a > boat in its own. :) > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFOcA5E0sVc > > Has anyone been sailing with Clive on "Nuthin Wong"? We'd love to hear > about > it. (Offline if you like) We're going to try and get Kay (my wife) > on-board > for a month so she can make sure that this sailboat thing is really > going to > work for her. > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > -- Barney Treadway www.ecomshare.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24857|24850|2011-01-05 18:23:17|Barney Treadway|Re: More Models & "Nuthin Wong"|Never mind, can see your story on submarineboat.com. Still love to hear costs as you go though! B On 1/2/2011 8:34 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > We got a pretty good 1/8th scale, 2 chine model done now. Big enough > to be a > boat in its own. :) > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFOcA5E0sVc > > Has anyone been sailing with Clive on "Nuthin Wong"? We'd love to hear > about > it. (Offline if you like) We're going to try and get Kay (my wife) > on-board > for a month so she can make sure that this sailboat thing is really > going to > work for her. > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > -- Barney Treadway www.ecomshare.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24858|24849|2011-01-05 19:43:51|brentswain38|Re: leading edge pipe on skeg|I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try. I leave the leading edge pipe on the skeg long, as it makes it easier to install, by pushing it thru a hole in the centreline, rather than trying to get it centred without this advantage. It has no structural advantage , once it's trimmed off flush. Its struggle enough lifting the skeg in position, without making it harder to keep it centred. For twin keelers, with the skeg exposed to rocks , one should put a bit of solid shaft in the bottom of this pipe, below the gusset, after it is installed, to stop any rock collision from denting the pipe. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > Hi Brent, > > Is there a stuctural reason why you keep the leading edge pipe extend the skeg beside to align the skeg when welding it? > > Martin. > | 24859|24849|2011-01-05 19:47:10|martin demers|Re: leading edge pipe on skeg|Brent, you answered my question, thanks. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 00:43:42 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: leading edge pipe on skeg I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try. I leave the leading edge pipe on the skeg long, as it makes it easier to install, by pushing it thru a hole in the centreline, rather than trying to get it centred without this advantage. It has no structural advantage , once it's trimmed off flush. Its struggle enough lifting the skeg in position, without making it harder to keep it centred. For twin keelers, with the skeg exposed to rocks , one should put a bit of solid shaft in the bottom of this pipe, below the gusset, after it is installed, to stop any rock collision from denting the pipe. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > Hi Brent, > > Is there a stuctural reason why you keep the leading edge pipe extend the skeg beside to align the skeg when welding it? > > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24860|24849|2011-01-06 00:04:06|Kim|Re: leading edge pipe on skeg|Hi Brent ... I take it you mean that once the skeg has been fully welded in position, its leading edge pipe (that was left protruding from the top of the skeg to facilitate installation) is cut off so that it's flush with the interior hull skin? And then I guess the top of the pipe has to be sealed by welding a small plate over its top? Also, when you say "one should put a bit of solid shaft in the bottom of this pipe, below the gusset, after it is installed, to stop any rock collision from denting the pipe": By "gusset" do you mean the 1/2" plate that's positioned outside the hull between the leading edge of the skeg and the bottom of the hull on the centerline? Would not the bit of solid shaft need to be a very tight fit in the bottom of the pipe to be effective? Would it be easier/better to use solid shaft (instead of pipe) for the leading edge of the skeg (like the solid shaft at the leading edge of the twin keels)? But then again maybe an all-solid shaft at the leading edge of the skeg would be unnecessarily heavier? Thanks Brent! Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ( ... although as we've just had the wettest December for 150 years I haven't been able to do much work on the boat recently! Much of Queensland is flooding; but fortunately my boat is on high ground and not in danger of being launched prematurely!) ____________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try. I leave the leading edge pipe on the skeg long, as it makes it easier to install, by pushing it thru a hole in the centreline, rather than trying to get it centred without this advantage. It has no structural advantage , once it's trimmed off flush. > Its struggle enough lifting the skeg in position, without making it harder to keep it centred. > For twin keelers, with the skeg exposed to rocks , one should put a bit of solid shaft in the bottom of this pipe, below the gusset, after it is installed, to stop any rock collision from denting the pipe. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > Is there a stuctural reason why you keep the leading edge pipe extend the skeg beside to align the skeg when welding it? > > > > Martin. ____________________________________________________________ | 24861|24449|2011-01-06 00:34:42|Gord Schnell|Re: Pilothouse|Brent Thanks for your generous offer. I lost your message in a "mess" of emails and just found it tonite as I was "cleaning house". I would appreciate drawings for the pilothouse....can't seem to find that portion anywhere. You can tell...my life is a bit of a mess...I lost your message. Thanks Gord On 15-Nov-10, at 1:25 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > Gord > You have already paid for the plans. Send me your postal address and > I'll send you the pilothouse drawings. May take a while, as I'm > heading fore the bush shortly. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > wrote: > > > > Brent > > I understand you have plans for a pilothouse. I built one for my > 40', > > but I'm not real impressed with how it looks and with it's weight. > > What are you asking for the plans. Gord > > On 10-Nov-10, at 1:47 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > Mark > > > Yes I have plans for a pilot house and would be happy to help you > > > get one together for Phsyche. > > > Metal would be best, as pilothouses have been considered a weak > spot > > > in other materials . We could build it ashore, detail it, then put > > > it on in a day. It could be done in aluminium. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Brent: > > > > Do you have plans for the pilothouse?? > > > > I wanted to putt one on Psyche that I just purchased in > CRiver. I > > > do not have much experience welding and was wondering about making > > > one out of solid fiberglass and/or epoxy coated plywood and then > > > bolting it in place?? I am familiar with those materials. > > > > I could also cut out all the steel or aluminum sheet and have it > > > welded and then install but I was wondering if it might warp > unless > > > it was held in a form of some kind. > > > > All thoughts appreciated. MarkH > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24862|24849|2011-01-06 07:31:50|scott|Re: leading edge pipe on skeg|hmmm just an idle thought.. could you use the skeg leading edge shaft/pipe as a one of the pipes into the skeg for coolant? cut hole in the pipe or drill a series of holes in it on the side that will be inside the skeg and then cap the top so that you can run your coolant return line etc... to it? just a thought... I would guess this would preclude making the pipe solid and would affect strength. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try. I leave the leading edge pipe on the skeg long, as it makes it easier to install, by pushing it thru a hole in the centreline, rather than trying to get it centred without this advantage. It has no structural advantage , once it's trimmed off flush. > Its struggle enough lifting the skeg in position, without making it harder to keep it centred. > For twin keelers, with the skeg exposed to rocks , one should put a bit of solid shaft in the bottom of this pipe, below the gusset, after it is installed, to stop any rock collision from denting the pipe. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > Is there a stuctural reason why you keep the leading edge pipe extend the skeg beside to align the skeg when welding it? > > > > Martin. > > > | 24863|24849|2011-01-06 15:24:11|brentswain38|Re: leading edge pipe on skeg|Yes you are right. You could use a solid shaft initially, which would make it heavier to lift in place, not a problem on something as small as the 26. With the pipe , one should drop the shaft in from the inside before sealing it. How are the floods affecting you in your part of Aussie? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Brent ... > > I take it you mean that once the skeg has been fully welded in position, its leading edge pipe (that was left protruding from the top of the skeg to facilitate installation) is cut off so that it's flush with the interior hull skin? And then I guess the top of the pipe has to be sealed by welding a small plate over its top? > > Also, when you say "one should put a bit of solid shaft in the bottom of this pipe, below the gusset, after it is installed, to stop any rock collision from denting the pipe": By "gusset" do you mean the 1/2" plate that's positioned outside the hull between the leading edge of the skeg and the bottom of the hull on the centerline? Would not the bit of solid shaft need to be a very tight fit in the bottom of the pipe to be effective? Would it be easier/better to use solid shaft (instead of pipe) for the leading edge of the skeg (like the solid shaft at the leading edge of the twin keels)? But then again maybe an all-solid shaft at the leading edge of the skeg would be unnecessarily heavier? > > Thanks Brent! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ( ... although as we've just had the wettest December for > 150 years I haven't been able to do much work on the boat > recently! Much of Queensland is flooding; but fortunately > my boat is on high ground and not in danger of being launched > prematurely!) > ____________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try. I leave the leading edge pipe on the skeg long, as it makes it easier to install, by pushing it thru a hole in the centreline, rather than trying to get it centred without this advantage. It has no structural advantage , once it's trimmed off flush. > > Its struggle enough lifting the skeg in position, without making it harder to keep it centred. > > For twin keelers, with the skeg exposed to rocks , one should put a bit of solid shaft in the bottom of this pipe, below the gusset, after it is installed, to stop any rock collision from denting the pipe. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > Is there a stuctural reason why you keep the leading edge pipe extend the skeg beside to align the skeg when welding it? > > > > > > Martin. > ____________________________________________________________ > | 24864|24449|2011-01-06 15:25:47|brentswain38|Re: Pilothouse|Gord Send me your postal address and I'll send it. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > Brent > Thanks for your generous offer. I lost your message in a "mess" of > emails and just found it tonite as I was "cleaning house". I would > appreciate drawings for the pilothouse....can't seem to find that > portion anywhere. You can tell...my life is a bit of a mess...I lost > your message. > Thanks > Gord > On 15-Nov-10, at 1:25 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > Gord > > You have already paid for the plans. Send me your postal address and > > I'll send you the pilothouse drawings. May take a while, as I'm > > heading fore the bush shortly. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell > > wrote: > > > > > > Brent > > > I understand you have plans for a pilothouse. I built one for my > > 40', > > > but I'm not real impressed with how it looks and with it's weight. > > > What are you asking for the plans. Gord > > > On 10-Nov-10, at 1:47 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > > > Mark > > > > Yes I have plans for a pilot house and would be happy to help you > > > > get one together for Phsyche. > > > > Metal would be best, as pilothouses have been considered a weak > > spot > > > > in other materials . We could build it ashore, detail it, then put > > > > it on in a day. It could be done in aluminium. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Brent: > > > > > Do you have plans for the pilothouse?? > > > > > I wanted to putt one on Psyche that I just purchased in > > CRiver. I > > > > do not have much experience welding and was wondering about making > > > > one out of solid fiberglass and/or epoxy coated plywood and then > > > > bolting it in place?? I am familiar with those materials. > > > > > I could also cut out all the steel or aluminum sheet and have it > > > > welded and then install but I was wondering if it might warp > > unless > > > > it was held in a form of some kind. > > > > > All thoughts appreciated. MarkH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24865|24849|2011-01-06 15:30:21|brentswain38|Re: leading edge pipe on skeg|Yes , I've done that on single keelers, where the skeg is protected by the single keel. You'd want only one pickup hole, about three inches up from the bottom, where the water is coolest. You want to make sure all the slag , etc,is out of the skeg before putting the bottom on , after all skeg steel work is finished. Takes a tight weld elbow where the cooling pipe leaves the skeg , to miss the stuffing box. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > > hmmm just an idle thought.. could you use the skeg leading edge shaft/pipe as a one of the pipes into the skeg for coolant? cut hole in the pipe or drill a series of holes in it on the side that will be inside the skeg and then cap the top so that you can run your coolant return line etc... to it? > > just a thought... I would guess this would preclude making the pipe solid and would affect strength. > scott > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try. I leave the leading edge pipe on the skeg long, as it makes it easier to install, by pushing it thru a hole in the centreline, rather than trying to get it centred without this advantage. It has no structural advantage , once it's trimmed off flush. > > Its struggle enough lifting the skeg in position, without making it harder to keep it centred. > > For twin keelers, with the skeg exposed to rocks , one should put a bit of solid shaft in the bottom of this pipe, below the gusset, after it is installed, to stop any rock collision from denting the pipe. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > > > > > Is there a stuctural reason why you keep the leading edge pipe extend the skeg beside to align the skeg when welding it? > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > | 24866|24843|2011-01-06 16:04:54|Matt Malone|Re: Truss Mast ?|OK, I have been doing some calculations on truss masts -- very impressive. It seems for a 40-ish foot boat, the bits would be really cheap, and accessible, easy dimensions to weld -- 5/8", 1/2", 3/8" rod. I observe the following points that might generally cause boat owners to consider a truss mast: - a mast is a potentially large cost in a boat, - a shell structure is difficult to attach point-loads to, - a truss is something that most people could weld-up after the practice of welding an entire orgami boat, - it can be lighter - it can be made of steel, - it can be tougher, in any measure I am thinking of now - it can be sectional, with added weight yes, but not a lot compared to joining sections of aluminium extrusion, - if it is sectional, it an be stepped and unstepped without a crane, using a gin-pole - with a little thought, the cross-members of the truss make automatic climbing steps - making a tapered truss mast is EASY ! (well, if you can do carpentry, then it is easy) I see the following problems with a truss mast: - aesthetics - it looks busy - it does not look like traditional boats - calculating the design of a truss is not as easy as buying a mast for a similar sized boat - it has a lot of bits to weld together - keeping it rust-proofed would be a pain - lots of bits to have to get to with a brush. I am guessing here, but is rope-wrapping or sail wrapping a problem ? Does anyone have experience ? Do ropes and sails tend to foul on a truss mast ? I am thinking, any problem with a truss mast, a mast with permanent steps would have the same problem (possibly more trouble). With a lot of open space, the air drag on a truss mast should not be worse than a hollow spar, and could be lower. Does anyone have any thoughts on a truss mast ? Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24867|24843|2011-01-06 18:09:56|David Frantz|Re: Truss Mast ?|Are you talking a free standing mast truss system or something with guy wires? I don't see how a free standing trust will be at all lighter than a pole. The big problem that I see is how do you attach booms, gangs and whatever without adding a lot of weight? My imagination says collars which add weight and stress concentration. I also think you underestimate the effort to build a straight trust. It would sort of like building a NASCAR frame except that manny more elements would need to be precisely cut. David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. On Jan 6, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > OK, I have been doing some calculations on truss masts -- very impressive. It seems for a 40-ish foot boat, the bits would be really cheap, and accessible, easy dimensions to weld -- 5/8", 1/2", 3/8" rod. I observe the following points that might generally cause boat owners to consider a truss mast: > > - a mast is a potentially large cost in a boat, > - a shell structure is difficult to attach point-loads to, > - a truss is something that most people could weld-up after the practice of welding an entire orgami boat, > - it can be lighter > - it can be made of steel, > - it can be tougher, in any measure I am thinking of now > - it can be sectional, with added weight yes, but not a lot compared to joining sections of aluminium extrusion, > - if it is sectional, it an be stepped and unstepped without a crane, using a gin-pole > - with a little thought, the cross-members of the truss make automatic climbing steps > - making a tapered truss mast is EASY ! (well, if you can do carpentry, then it is easy) > > I see the following problems with a truss mast: > > - aesthetics - it looks busy > - it does not look like traditional boats > - calculating the design of a truss is not as easy as buying a mast for a similar sized boat > - it has a lot of bits to weld together > - keeping it rust-proofed would be a pain - lots of bits to have to get to with a brush. > > I am guessing here, but is rope-wrapping or sail wrapping a problem ? Does anyone have experience ? Do ropes and sails tend to foul on a truss mast ? I am thinking, any problem with a truss mast, a mast with permanent steps would have the same problem (possibly more trouble). With a lot of open space, the air drag on a truss mast should not be worse than a hollow spar, and could be lower. > > Does anyone have any thoughts on a truss mast ? > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24868|24843|2011-01-06 19:52:52|Doug Jackson|Re: Truss Mast ?|Are they noisier in the wind? Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Matt Malone To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 3:04:52 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? OK, I have been doing some calculations on truss masts -- very impressive. It seems for a 40-ish foot boat, the bits would be really cheap, and accessible, easy dimensions to weld -- 5/8", 1/2", 3/8" rod. I observe the following points that might generally cause boat owners to consider a truss mast: - a mast is a potentially large cost in a boat, - a shell structure is difficult to attach point-loads to, - a truss is something that most people could weld-up after the practice of welding an entire orgami boat, - it can be lighter - it can be made of steel, - it can be tougher, in any measure I am thinking of now - it can be sectional, with added weight yes, but not a lot compared to joining sections of aluminium extrusion, - if it is sectional, it an be stepped and unstepped without a crane, using a gin-pole - with a little thought, the cross-members of the truss make automatic climbing steps - making a tapered truss mast is EASY ! (well, if you can do carpentry, then it is easy) I see the following problems with a truss mast: - aesthetics - it looks busy - it does not look like traditional boats - calculating the design of a truss is not as easy as buying a mast for a similar sized boat - it has a lot of bits to weld together - keeping it rust-proofed would be a pain - lots of bits to have to get to with a brush. I am guessing here, but is rope-wrapping or sail wrapping a problem ? Does anyone have experience ? Do ropes and sails tend to foul on a truss mast ? I am thinking, any problem with a truss mast, a mast with permanent steps would have the same problem (possibly more trouble). With a lot of open space, the air drag on a truss mast should not be worse than a hollow spar, and could be lower. Does anyone have any thoughts on a truss mast ? Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24869|24849|2011-01-06 20:47:28|Kim|Re: leading edge pipe on skeg|Thanks for the info, Brent. I think I will use a solid shaft (instead of pipe) for the leading edge of the skeg in my 26-footer. I think it might be easier doing that. And as you say, the skeg on the 26-footer isn't all that big anyway. Yeah, everyone around here is thoroughly sick of the never-ending rain! We've just had the wettest December for 150 years, and it's still raining heavily! Apparently it's mostly caused by an unusual "La Nina" weather pattern, and a small cyclone that hit North Queensland in early December. Almost half of Queensland is flooded - an area about the size of France and Germany combined is under water! Many thousands of families across the State have had to temporarily abandon their homes. Fortunately where I live in Brisbane has been largely unaffected. My boat is on high ground; but the never-ending rain has stopped me working on it. It a bit weird really, as 6 months ago all the dams around Brisbane were nearly dry, and the city almost ran out of water! From one extreme to the other in only a few months! Still, hopefully everything will soon return to more normal conditions. Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Yes you are right. You could use a solid shaft initially, which would make it heavier to lift in place, not a problem on something as small as the 26. With the pipe , one should drop the shaft in from the inside before sealing it. > How are the floods affecting you in your part of Aussie? > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > Hi Brent ... > > > > I take it you mean that once the skeg has been fully welded in position, its leading edge pipe (that was left protruding from the top of the skeg to facilitate installation) is cut off so that it's flush with the interior hull skin? And then I guess the top of the pipe has to be sealed by welding a small plate over its top? > > > > Also, when you say "one should put a bit of solid shaft in the bottom of this pipe, below the gusset, after it is installed, to stop any rock collision from denting the pipe": By "gusset" do you mean the 1/2" plate that's positioned outside the hull between the leading edge of the skeg and the bottom of the hull on the centerline? Would not the bit of solid shaft need to be a very tight fit in the bottom of the pipe to be effective? Would it be easier/better to use solid shaft (instead of pipe) for the leading edge of the skeg (like the solid shaft at the leading edge of the twin keels)? But then again maybe an all-solid shaft at the leading edge of the skeg would be unnecessarily heavier? > > > > Thanks Brent! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > ( ... although as we've just had the wettest December for > > 150 years I haven't been able to do much work on the boat > > recently! Much of Queensland is flooding; but fortunately > > my boat is on high ground and not in danger of being launched > > prematurely!) > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try. I leave the leading edge pipe on the skeg long, as it makes it easier to install, by pushing it thru a hole in the centreline, rather than trying to get it centred without this advantage. It has no structural advantage , once it's trimmed off flush. > > > Its struggle enough lifting the skeg in position, without making it harder to keep it centred. > > > For twin keelers, with the skeg exposed to rocks , one should put a bit of solid shaft in the bottom of this pipe, below the gusset, after it is installed, to stop any rock collision from denting the pipe. ____________________________________________________________ | 24870|24843|2011-01-07 05:00:44|mauro gonzaga|Re: Truss Mast ?|--- On Fri, 1/7/11, David Frantz wrote: From: David Frantz Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Cc: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Date: Friday, January 7, 2011, 12:09 AM   Are you talking a free standing mast truss system or something with guy wires? I don't see how a free standing trust will be at all lighter than a pole. The big problem that I see is how do you attach booms, gangs and whatever without adding a lot of weight? My imagination says collars which add weight and stress concentration. I also think you underestimate the effort to build a straight trust. It would sort of like building a NASCAR frame except that manny more elements would need to be precisely cut. David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. Did you consider the noise in the wind?mauro [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24871|24843|2011-01-07 07:35:07|Matt Malone|Re: Truss Mast ?|I am talking about a mast that is normal in every other way, spreaders shrouds, etc. The German website http://www.yacht-mast.de/ claims that there is less wind noise. A regular closed-section mast, be it wood, aluminium or composite, has a drag coefficient transition speed of about 45-60 knots. (Masts with a wide slot, like in-mast furling might make noise like a whistle -- different mechanism.) The much smaller rods in a trust mast have a much higher transition speed (like 8 time higher). So if the noise is related to flow pattern, then the truss mast will generate the same type of noise, at a higher speed. Also, tips of things tend to create noise, from shed vortexes, however, with a truss mast, all the members are welded at both ends. I do not see a reason why a truss mast would be noisier. It is not hard to go stand near a small radio/TV transmission tower in a storm and listen. Ones of about 150-300 ft might be made out of sections the size of a triangular residential TV mast, however made out of solid steel rods. As for adding fixtures... One can weld on brackets to hold the spreaders. Shrouds can be wrapped around one of the uprights, at the point where a cross-brace reinforces it. Sail track would have to be steel, or held by clips/clamps of some sort. Everything else would be mounted on a clamp of some sort. A hose clamp would do for light stuff like lights. As for making it straight -- yes, a challenge, but with laser-pointers / levels, it would not be hard to make a 20-foot long work area that is straight, and then saw horses under the part beyond that is complete. As one works, the mast is slid out more and more onto the saw-horses. Still not sure why truss masts are not more common. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: maurogonzaga1940@... Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 02:00:35 -0800 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? --- On Fri, 1/7/11, David Frantz wrote: From: David Frantz Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Cc: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Date: Friday, January 7, 2011, 12:09 AM Are you talking a free standing mast truss system or something with guy wires? I don't see how a free standing trust will be at all lighter than a pole. The big problem that I see is how do you attach booms, gangs and whatever without adding a lot of weight? My imagination says collars which add weight and stress concentration. I also think you underestimate the effort to build a straight trust. It would sort of like building a NASCAR frame except that manny more elements would need to be precisely cut. David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. Did you consider the noise in the wind?mauro [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24872|24850|2011-01-07 07:58:27|edward|Re: More Models & "Nuthin Wong"|Hi Doug, Clive and Nuthin Wong is in Portugal getting ready to sail to Cuba. http://www.nuthin-wong.blogspot.com/. I guess you might know that though. Regards, Ted --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > We got a pretty good 1/8th scale, 2 chine model done now. Big enough to be a > boat in its own. :) > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFOcA5E0sVc > > Has anyone been sailing with Clive on "Nuthin Wong"? We'd love to hear about > it. (Offline if you like) We're going to try and get Kay (my wife) on-board > for a month so she can make sure that this sailboat thing is really going to > work for her. > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24873|24843|2011-01-07 09:20:30|Wally Paine|Re: Truss Mast ?|It is possible the rarity of truss masts has to do with their aerodynamic properties. A normal mast forms the leading edge of of the mainsail. I suspect the airflow around it is relatively smooth with the sail up and if it separates at all it re -attaches to the sail quite quickly. The wake to leeward of a truss is probably pretty turbulent. This is arm chair stuff. I've not tried it.  Wally Paine  --- On Fri, 7/1/11, Matt Malone wrote: From: Matt Malone Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, 7 January, 2011, 12:34   I am talking about a mast that is normal in every other way, spreaders shrouds, etc. The German website http://www.yacht-mast.de/ claims that there is less wind noise. A regular closed-section mast, be it wood, aluminium or composite, has a drag coefficient transition speed of about 45-60 knots. (Masts with a wide slot, like in-mast furling might make noise like a whistle -- different mechanism.) The much smaller rods in a trust mast have a much higher transition speed (like 8 time higher). So if the noise is related to flow pattern, then the truss mast will generate the same type of noise, at a higher speed. Also, tips of things tend to create noise, from shed vortexes, however, with a truss mast, all the members are welded at both ends. I do not see a reason why a truss mast would be noisier. It is not hard to go stand near a small radio/TV transmission tower in a storm and listen. Ones of about 150-300 ft might be made out of sections the size of a triangular residential TV mast, however made out of solid steel rods. As for adding fixtures... One can weld on brackets to hold the spreaders. Shrouds can be wrapped around one of the uprights, at the point where a cross-brace reinforces it. Sail track would have to be steel, or held by clips/clamps of some sort. Everything else would be mounted on a clamp of some sort. A hose clamp would do for light stuff like lights. As for making it straight -- yes, a challenge, but with laser-pointers / levels, it would not be hard to make a 20-foot long work area that is straight, and then saw horses under the part beyond that is complete. As one works, the mast is slid out more and more onto the saw-horses. Still not sure why truss masts are not more common. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: maurogonzaga1940@... Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 02:00:35 -0800 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? --- On Fri, 1/7/11, David Frantz wrote: From: David Frantz Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Cc: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Date: Friday, January 7, 2011, 12:09 AM Are you talking a free standing mast truss system or something with guy wires? I don't see how a free standing trust will be at all lighter than a pole. The big problem that I see is how do you attach booms, gangs and whatever without adding a lot of weight? My imagination says collars which add weight and stress concentration. I also think you underestimate the effort to build a straight trust. It would sort of like building a NASCAR frame except that manny more elements would need to be precisely cut. David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. Did you consider the noise in the wind?mauro [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24874|24850|2011-01-07 10:29:48|Doug Jackson|Re: More Models & "Nuthin Wong"|Yes, but thank you Ted. Kay will meet up with Clive and the Wong when she makes it to the Caribbean in March. The plan is for her to stay on-board till she decides we want to stick to building submarines or she will stay a month or more and confirm that we want to move up to building and sailing a boat like the Wong. If others are interested in Clive and the Wong he keeps a blog: http://nuthin-wong.blogspot.com/ Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: edward To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, January 7, 2011 6:58:23 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: More Models & "Nuthin Wong" Hi Doug, Clive and Nuthin Wong is in Portugal getting ready to sail to Cuba. http://www.nuthin-wong.blogspot.com/. I guess you might know that though. Regards, Ted --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Doug Jackson wrote: > > We got a pretty good 1/8th scale, 2 chine model done now. Big enough to be a > boat in its own. :) > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFOcA5E0sVc > > Has anyone been sailing with Clive on "Nuthin Wong"? We'd love to hear about > it. (Offline if you like) We're going to try and get Kay (my wife) on-board > for a month so she can make sure that this sailboat thing is really going to > work for her. > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24875|24843|2011-01-07 13:15:27|Matt Malone|Re: Mast Options (was Truss Mast ?)|Maybe right Wally, I don't know. From the armchair, sure, it seems there has to be SOME problem.... problem is, I am not sure I have found the problem yet, and this is really starting to look intriguing... I have thought about aerodynamics... No clarity has been found, but I will share my thoughts on that : Sure, I can see, especially if one is a racer who has a foil-shaped mast, and can turn the mast so that the foil shape is better oriented to the wind, yes for certain the flow onto the sail would be better, no question. But we do not have foil shape masts, and few of us can pivot our mast. If the mast cannot be turned, and the mast is an oval, I see: - the flow separation point from a cylinder-like thing is just over 90 degrees from the apparent wind direction. - sail tracks are usually on the back of the mast, and apparent wind is more commonly on the head of the boat (or is when sail suction-side performance is more of an issue) - the apparent wind is on the opposite side of the mast that the valuable suction / performance side of the sail is Therefore, for the wind to remain non-turbulent going around the mast to the sail, it has to go around more than 180 degress to get to the suction side of the sail. When there IS turbulence, the separation point on a cylinder-like thing moves further aft (which is generally better). This is a really cool paper on general aerodynamics with lots of very informative illustrations, even if one skips the math. The phenomena of the separation point moving aft because of turbulence in high Reynolds number flows (high speed and/or large bodies) is shown in a diagram about 2/3 of the way through it. This causes the drag coefficient of cylinder-like things, and spheres too, to drop substantially at higher speeds (or larger sisizes). For instance, the dimples on golf balls induce turbulence for a small ball at a lower speed, reducing drag, and allowing the ball to go further. So Wally, you may be right, but, a little fine turbulence, that coming from a 1/2" steel cross-brace rod might be a good thing... Not saying this is what would happen with a truss mast, but it opens the possibility of a truss mast being better than a non-rotatable oval mast section. http://www-scf.usc.edu/~tchklovs/Proposal.htm So in the end, it is not clear to me that the truss is worse than a non-pivoting oval cross-section mast for performance. (It might be worse, might be better, all I am saying is, it is complicated.) Expensive racing boats use graphite tubes. I can see why a graphite tube is superior to a welded steel lattice truss, just from strength to weight, weight aloft and stiffness, and, graphite is way easier to form into a tube than a lattice truss. If anyone can bring in some people or reference information, I think this would be useful. If good or even superior masts could be welded from scrap, that would only benefit the orgami community. I am already thinking about really simple jigs to get and keep the mast straight as the parts are being welded up. ON THE OTHER HAND.... I have spoken to some mast people, and a new rig for my boat might only be $5,600, (might be similar to what a BS36 needs?). It looks like a triple-spreader, fishing-rod-like mast section (all discussion of robustness might start now). Alternately, I have been invited to look at their second hand masts to see if there is something there for $1,500 to $3,000. All of these are options, and the truss mast is making me giggle, it looks so interesting. It is not nearly as beautifully-simple as the orgami method, but, wow, is it possible that a truss mast might be a good choice ? What options are other people looking at, and what are the costs ? Matt --------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: wgpaine@... Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:20:19 +0000 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? It is possible the rarity of truss masts has to do with their aerodynamic properties. A normal mast forms the leading edge of of the mainsail. I suspect the airflow around it is relatively smooth with the sail up and if it separates at all it re -attaches to the sail quite quickly. The wake to leeward of a truss is probably pretty turbulent. This is arm chair stuff. I've not tried it. Wally Paine [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24876|24843|2011-01-07 13:44:59|Ben Okopnik|Re: Truss Mast ?|On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 07:34:56AM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > Still not sure why truss masts are not more common. 1) Herd mentality ("if they were any good, they'd be more common") 2) The necessity of having to actually *understand* what a mast is, how it works, the pros and the cons of different shapes and options, etc. 3) The fiddliness factor. You can either plunk down your money and walk away with a mast that you *know* will work - because it works in millions of other similar applications - or you have to fiddle with dozens or hundreds of little parts and weld them together, possibly with a degree of precision that most welders can't handle. Besides, most people - most welders, even, including a number of people who have built boats - aren't structural engineers, and would have a bit of a problem designing a truss tower with proper load distribution, taper, etc. I don't have to get into what happens if you get just one of your figures wrong, right? That possibility of a catastrophic failure is a pretty big risk to take just for an experiment. For someone who _is_ a structural engineer, it may be as simple as putting a pencil to paper and might be a good alternative - but that's probably not true for most people. For those who want a cheap and strong mast, building it out of pipe - which is what I've seen Brent recommend here - is about as simple and as good as you can get. If it was something that I had to do, that's what I'd go with. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24877|24843|2011-01-07 14:22:45|James Pronk|Re: Truss Mast ?|I priced the material for a steel mast 5"OD, 1/8 wall for about $156 a 24' length. One joint between the two sections to be welded. Why would you even think about building a truss mast? James --- On Fri, 1/7/11, Ben Okopnik wrote: From: Ben Okopnik Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Friday, January 7, 2011, 1:44 PM   On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 07:34:56AM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > Still not sure why truss masts are not more common. 1) Herd mentality ("if they were any good, they'd be more common") 2) The necessity of having to actually *understand* what a mast is, how it works, the pros and the cons of different shapes and options, etc. 3) The fiddliness factor. You can either plunk down your money and walk away with a mast that you *know* will work - because it works in millions of other similar applications - or you have to fiddle with dozens or hundreds of little parts and weld them together, possibly with a degree of precision that most welders can't handle. Besides, most people - most welders, even, including a number of people who have built boats - aren't structural engineers, and would have a bit of a problem designing a truss tower with proper load distribution, taper, etc. I don't have to get into what happens if you get just one of your figures wrong, right? That possibility of a catastrophic failure is a pretty big risk to take just for an experiment. For someone who _is_ a structural engineer, it may be as simple as putting a pencil to paper and might be a good alternative - but that's probably not true for most people. For those who want a cheap and strong mast, building it out of pipe - which is what I've seen Brent recommend here - is about as simple and as good as you can get. If it was something that I had to do, that's what I'd go with. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24878|24843|2011-01-07 14:25:27|James Pronk|Re: Mast Options (was Truss Mast ?)|Go ahead and build one amd let us know how it works. James --- On Fri, 1/7/11, Matt Malone wrote: From: Matt Malone Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Mast Options (was Truss Mast ?) To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Friday, January 7, 2011, 1:15 PM   Maybe right Wally, I don't know. From the armchair, sure, it seems there has to be SOME problem.... problem is, I am not sure I have found the problem yet, and this is really starting to look intriguing... I have thought about aerodynamics... No clarity has been found, but I will share my thoughts on that : Sure, I can see, especially if one is a racer who has a foil-shaped mast, and can turn the mast so that the foil shape is better oriented to the wind, yes for certain the flow onto the sail would be better, no question. But we do not have foil shape masts, and few of us can pivot our mast. If the mast cannot be turned, and the mast is an oval, I see: - the flow separation point from a cylinder-like thing is just over 90 degrees from the apparent wind direction. - sail tracks are usually on the back of the mast, and apparent wind is more commonly on the head of the boat (or is when sail suction-side performance is more of an issue) - the apparent wind is on the opposite side of the mast that the valuable suction / performance side of the sail is Therefore, for the wind to remain non-turbulent going around the mast to the sail, it has to go around more than 180 degress to get to the suction side of the sail. When there IS turbulence, the separation point on a cylinder-like thing moves further aft (which is generally better). This is a really cool paper on general aerodynamics with lots of very informative illustrations, even if one skips the math. The phenomena of the separation point moving aft because of turbulence in high Reynolds number flows (high speed and/or large bodies) is shown in a diagram about 2/3 of the way through it. This causes the drag coefficient of cylinder-like things, and spheres too, to drop substantially at higher speeds (or larger sisizes). For instance, the dimples on golf balls induce turbulence for a small ball at a lower speed, reducing drag, and allowing the ball to go further. So Wally, you may be right, but, a little fine turbulence, that coming from a 1/2" steel cross-brace rod might be a good thing... Not saying this is what would happen with a truss mast, but it opens the possibility of a truss mast being better than a non-rotatable oval mast section. http://www-scf.usc.edu/~tchklovs/Proposal.htm So in the end, it is not clear to me that the truss is worse than a non-pivoting oval cross-section mast for performance. (It might be worse, might be better, all I am saying is, it is complicated.) Expensive racing boats use graphite tubes. I can see why a graphite tube is superior to a welded steel lattice truss, just from strength to weight, weight aloft and stiffness, and, graphite is way easier to form into a tube than a lattice truss. If anyone can bring in some people or reference information, I think this would be useful. If good or even superior masts could be welded from scrap, that would only benefit the orgami community. I am already thinking about really simple jigs to get and keep the mast straight as the parts are being welded up. ON THE OTHER HAND.... I have spoken to some mast people, and a new rig for my boat might only be $5,600, (might be similar to what a BS36 needs?). It looks like a triple-spreader, fishing-rod-like mast section (all discussion of robustness might start now). Alternately, I have been invited to look at their second hand masts to see if there is something there for $1,500 to $3,000. All of these are options, and the truss mast is making me giggle, it looks so interesting. It is not nearly as beautifully-simple as the orgami method, but, wow, is it possible that a truss mast might be a good choice ? What options are other people looking at, and what are the costs ? Matt ---------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: wgpaine@... Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:20:19 +0000 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? It is possible the rarity of truss masts has to do with their aerodynamic properties. A normal mast forms the leading edge of of the mainsail. I suspect the airflow around it is relatively smooth with the sail up and if it separates at all it re -attaches to the sail quite quickly. The wake to leeward of a truss is probably pretty turbulent. This is arm chair stuff. I've not tried it. Wally Paine [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24879|24843|2011-01-07 15:04:29|Matt Malone|Re: Truss Mast ?|Good point James. I did not see the 5" pipe recommendation before. How much of the 48 ' is used ? How many spreaders in that design ? And is that deck stepped ? Thanks Matt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: jpronk1@... Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 11:22:44 -0800 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? I priced the material for a steel mast 5"OD, 1/8 wall for about $156 a 24' length. One joint between the two sections to be welded. Why would you even think about building a truss mast? James --- On Fri, 1/7/11, Ben Okopnik wrote: From: Ben Okopnik Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Friday, January 7, 2011, 1:44 PM On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 07:34:56AM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > Still not sure why truss masts are not more common. 1) Herd mentality ("if they were any good, they'd be more common") 2) The necessity of having to actually *understand* what a mast is, how it works, the pros and the cons of different shapes and options, etc. 3) The fiddliness factor. You can either plunk down your money and walk away with a mast that you *know* will work - because it works in millions of other similar applications - or you have to fiddle with dozens or hundreds of little parts and weld them together, possibly with a degree of precision that most welders can't handle. Besides, most people - most welders, even, including a number of people who have built boats - aren't structural engineers, and would have a bit of a problem designing a truss tower with proper load distribution, taper, etc. I don't have to get into what happens if you get just one of your figures wrong, right? That possibility of a catastrophic failure is a pretty big risk to take just for an experiment. For someone who _is_ a structural engineer, it may be as simple as putting a pencil to paper and might be a good alternative - but that's probably not true for most people. For those who want a cheap and strong mast, building it out of pipe - which is what I've seen Brent recommend here - is about as simple and as good as you can get. If it was something that I had to do, that's what I'd go with. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24880|24843|2011-01-07 20:24:00|James Pronk|Re: Truss Mast ?|It has one set of spreaders and is deck stepped. I think you could use the whole 48 feet. You don't have to run the sails all the way up it. I think the mast is 44 or 46 feet is what most people are using. James --- On Fri, 1/7/11, Matt Malone wrote: From: Matt Malone Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Friday, January 7, 2011, 3:04 PM Good point James.  I did not see the 5" pipe recommendation before.   How much of the 48 ' is used ?   How many spreaders in that design ?   And is that deck stepped ?  Thanks Matt To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24881|24843|2011-01-07 20:29:19|Aaron Williams|Re: Truss Mast ?|James What size boat was the 5" for ? I undersand that for the BS36 minimum was 5-1/2" steel tube Aaron ________________________________ From: James Pronk To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, January 7, 2011 4:23:59 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ?   It has one set of spreaders and is deck stepped. I think you could use the whole 48 feet. You don't have to run the sails all the way up it. I think the mast is 44 or 46 feet is what most people are using. James --- On Fri, 1/7/11, Matt Malone wrote: From: Matt Malone Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Friday, January 7, 2011, 3:04 PM Good point James.  I did not see the 5" pipe recommendation before.   How much of the 48 ' is used ?   How many spreaders in that design ?   And is that deck stepped ?  Thanks Matt To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (20) Recent Activity: * New Members 5 Visit Your Group To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24882|24843|2011-01-07 20:37:36|James Pronk|Re: Truss Mast ?|I thought it was 5" for the 36' I have been wrong once before though James --- On Fri, 1/7/11, Aaron Williams wrote: From: Aaron Williams Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Friday, January 7, 2011, 8:29 PM   James What size boat was the 5" for ? I undersand that for the BS36 minimum was 5-1/2" steel tube Aaron ________________________________ From: James Pronk To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, January 7, 2011 4:23:59 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ?   It has one set of spreaders and is deck stepped. I think you could use the whole 48 feet. You don't have to run the sails all the way up it. I think the mast is 44 or 46 feet is what most people are using. James --- On Fri, 1/7/11, Matt Malone wrote: From: Matt Malone Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Friday, January 7, 2011, 3:04 PM Good point James.  I did not see the 5" pipe recommendation before.   How much of the 48 ' is used ?   How many spreaders in that design ?   And is that deck stepped ?  Thanks Matt To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (20) Recent Activity: * New Members 5 Visit Your Group To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24883|24843|2011-01-07 20:44:59|Aaron Williams|Re: Truss Mast ?|I believe you can do a search in the messages for mast and it should come up about 2 months ago and about 1 year ago and about 2 years ago. But lots of messages have Mast in them so it can be a pain to find. Mast stability may narrow it down a bit Aaron ________________________________ From: James Pronk To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, January 7, 2011 4:37:34 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ?   I thought it was 5" for the 36' I have been wrong once before though James --- On Fri, 1/7/11, Aaron Williams wrote: From: Aaron Williams Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Friday, January 7, 2011, 8:29 PM   James What size boat was the 5" for ? I undersand that for the BS36 minimum was 5-1/2" steel tube Aaron ________________________________ From: James Pronk To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, January 7, 2011 4:23:59 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ?   It has one set of spreaders and is deck stepped. I think you could use the whole 48 feet. You don't have to run the sails all the way up it. I think the mast is 44 or 46 feet is what most people are using. James --- On Fri, 1/7/11, Matt Malone wrote: From: Matt Malone Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Friday, January 7, 2011, 3:04 PM Good point James.  I did not see the 5" pipe recommendation before.   How much of the 48 ' is used ?   How many spreaders in that design ?   And is that deck stepped ?  Thanks Matt To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (20) Recent Activity: * New Members 5 Visit Your Group To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (22) Recent Activity: * New Members 5 Visit Your Group To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24884|24843|2011-01-07 21:31:10|martin demers|Re: Truss Mast ?|I couldn't find 5 1/2 in. diameter x 1/8 so I bought 6in. x 1/8 Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: jpronk1@... Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:37:34 -0800 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? I thought it was 5" for the 36' I have been wrong once before though James --- On Fri, 1/7/11, Aaron Williams wrote: From: Aaron Williams Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Friday, January 7, 2011, 8:29 PM James What size boat was the 5" for ? I undersand that for the BS36 minimum was 5-1/2" steel tube Aaron ________________________________ From: James Pronk To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, January 7, 2011 4:23:59 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? It has one set of spreaders and is deck stepped. I think you could use the whole 48 feet. You don't have to run the sails all the way up it. I think the mast is 44 or 46 feet is what most people are using. James --- On Fri, 1/7/11, Matt Malone wrote: From: Matt Malone Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Friday, January 7, 2011, 3:04 PM Good point James. I did not see the 5" pipe recommendation before. How much of the 48 ' is used ? How many spreaders in that design ? And is that deck stepped ? Thanks Matt To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (20) Recent Activity: * New Members 5 Visit Your Group To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest � Unsubscribe � Terms of Use . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24885|24843|2011-01-07 23:48:40|David Frantz|Re: Truss Mast ?|Quick lunch break reply. I would suspect the number one issue is cost. Cost may not be an issue with a DIY project but time is. They are really one in the same as it is the fabrication time that causes you the expense. As to fabrication I still believe you underestimate the effort. To look half decent you will need to cut a lot of short sections precisely and the jig up the whole thing at once for welding. I don't see building off the end of a table working out well. On top of that engineering for things like spreaders will need to be done. The problem there is envenly applying the loads. It isn't impossible just not as easy as a traditional approach. David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. On Jan 7, 2011, at 7:34 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > I am talking about a mast that is normal in every other way, spreaders shrouds, etc. > > The German website http://www.yacht-mast.de/ claims that there is less wind noise. A regular closed-section mast, be it wood, aluminium or composite, has a drag coefficient transition speed of about 45-60 knots. (Masts with a wide slot, like in-mast furling might make noise like a whistle -- different mechanism.) The much smaller rods in a trust mast have a much higher transition speed (like 8 time higher). So if the noise is related to flow pattern, then the truss mast will generate the same type of noise, at a higher speed. Also, tips of things tend to create noise, from shed vortexes, however, with a truss mast, all the members are welded at both ends. I do not see a reason why a truss mast would be noisier. It is not hard to go stand near a small radio/TV transmission tower in a storm and listen. Ones of about 150-300 ft might be made out of sections the size of a triangular residential TV mast, however made out of solid steel rods. > > As for adding fixtures... One can weld on brackets to hold the spreaders. Shrouds can be wrapped around one of the uprights, at the point where a cross-brace reinforces it. Sail track would have to be steel, or held by clips/clamps of some sort. Everything else would be mounted on a clamp of some sort. A hose clamp would do for light stuff like lights. > > As for making it straight -- yes, a challenge, but with laser-pointers / levels, it would not be hard to make a 20-foot long work area that is straight, and then saw horses under the part beyond that is complete. As one works, the mast is slid out more and more onto the saw-horses. > > Still not sure why truss masts are not more common. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: maurogonzaga1940@... > Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 02:00:35 -0800 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? > > > --- On Fri, 1/7/11, David Frantz wrote: > > > > From: David Frantz > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? > > To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" > > Cc: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" > > Date: Friday, January 7, 2011, 12:09 AM > > Are you talking a free standing mast truss system or something with guy wires? I don't see how a free standing trust will be at all lighter than a pole. > > > > The big problem that I see is how do you attach booms, gangs and whatever without adding a lot of weight? My imagination says collars which add weight and stress concentration. > > > > I also think you underestimate the effort to build a straight trust. It would sort of like building a NASCAR frame except that manny more elements would need to be precisely cut. > > > > David A Frantz > > > > websterindustro4at4mac.com > > > > Sent from my iPhone. > > Did you consider the noise in the wind?mauro > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24886|24843|2011-01-08 17:25:53|boatwayupnorth|Re: Truss Mast ?|Matt, you can have a look at this thread from another forum: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/steel-lattice-masts-4539.html Pros and cons as for most in life ... Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > In one of the images that flips through here: > > http://www.moonflowerofmoab.com/different%20boats.html > > There appears to be an orgami boat with a truss-mast. Like an antenna tower. > > I cannot find that picture on any of the links provided on moonflowerofmoab, so I ask, does anyone know about the boat with the truss mast, and how that mast worked out ? > > Thanks, > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24888|24843|2011-01-08 18:00:22|Matt Malone|Re: Truss Mast ?|Thank you Walter, very informative, I think I am going to go stand near a radio mast on a windy day, see what sort of noise there is. Matt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: w.schonfelder@... Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 22:25:51 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Truss Mast ? Matt, you can have a look at this thread from another forum: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/steel-lattice-masts-4539.html Pros and cons as for most in life ... Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > In one of the images that flips through here: > > http://www.moonflowerofmoab.com/different%20boats.html > > There appears to be an orgami boat with a truss-mast. Like an antenna tower. > > I cannot find that picture on any of the links provided on moonflowerofmoab, so I ask, does anyone know about the boat with the truss mast, and how that mast worked out ? > > Thanks, > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24889|24849|2011-01-08 18:07:02|brentswain38|Re: leading edge pipe on skeg|I'll try one more time. In BC we have a lot of rain.Once the lifelines are on we duct tape covered wagon style hoops to the stanchions, made of black poly pipe, along with a few longitudinals made of the same stuff. Then we tie poly weave traps over it, with one side taken out to weights to make a protected area to build detail parts on the ground. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Thanks for the info, Brent. I think I will use a solid shaft (instead of pipe) for the leading edge of the skeg in my 26-footer. I think it might be easier doing that. And as you say, the skeg on the 26-footer isn't all that big anyway. > > Yeah, everyone around here is thoroughly sick of the never-ending rain! We've just had the wettest December for 150 years, and it's still raining heavily! Apparently it's mostly caused by an unusual "La Nina" weather pattern, and a small cyclone that hit North Queensland in early December. Almost half of Queensland is flooded - an area about the size of France and Germany combined is under water! Many thousands of families across the State have had to temporarily abandon their homes. Fortunately where I live in Brisbane has been largely unaffected. My boat is on high ground; but the never-ending rain has stopped me working on it. It a bit weird really, as 6 months ago all the dams around Brisbane were nearly dry, and the city almost ran out of water! From one extreme to the other in only a few months! Still, hopefully everything will soon return to more normal conditions. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Yes you are right. You could use a solid shaft initially, which would make it heavier to lift in place, not a problem on something as small as the 26. With the pipe , one should drop the shaft in from the inside before sealing it. > > How are the floods affecting you in your part of Aussie? > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Brent ... > > > > > > I take it you mean that once the skeg has been fully welded in position, its leading edge pipe (that was left protruding from the top of the skeg to facilitate installation) is cut off so that it's flush with the interior hull skin? And then I guess the top of the pipe has to be sealed by welding a small plate over its top? > > > > > > Also, when you say "one should put a bit of solid shaft in the bottom of this pipe, below the gusset, after it is installed, to stop any rock collision from denting the pipe": By "gusset" do you mean the 1/2" plate that's positioned outside the hull between the leading edge of the skeg and the bottom of the hull on the centerline? Would not the bit of solid shaft need to be a very tight fit in the bottom of the pipe to be effective? Would it be easier/better to use solid shaft (instead of pipe) for the leading edge of the skeg (like the solid shaft at the leading edge of the twin keels)? But then again maybe an all-solid shaft at the leading edge of the skeg would be unnecessarily heavier? > > > > > > Thanks Brent! > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > Kim. > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > > ( ... although as we've just had the wettest December for > > > 150 years I haven't been able to do much work on the boat > > > recently! Much of Queensland is flooding; but fortunately > > > my boat is on high ground and not in danger of being launched > > > prematurely!) > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try. I leave the leading edge pipe on the skeg long, as it makes it easier to install, by pushing it thru a hole in the centreline, rather than trying to get it centred without this advantage. It has no structural advantage , once it's trimmed off flush. > > > > Its struggle enough lifting the skeg in position, without making it harder to keep it centred. > > > > For twin keelers, with the skeg exposed to rocks , one should put a bit of solid shaft in the bottom of this pipe, below the gusset, after it is installed, to stop any rock collision from denting the pipe. > ____________________________________________________________ > | 24890|24849|2011-01-08 18:09:45|brentswain38|Re: leading edge pipe on skeg|When the first white missionaries came to BC, they told the natives of how it once rained for 40 days and 40 nites and the whole world flooded. The natives laughed like hell, and said "Here it rains for 6 months of every year and the world doesn't flood . Whats this 40 days and 40 nites bullshit?" --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Thanks for the info, Brent. I think I will use a solid shaft (instead of pipe) for the leading edge of the skeg in my 26-footer. I think it might be easier doing that. And as you say, the skeg on the 26-footer isn't all that big anyway. > > Yeah, everyone around here is thoroughly sick of the never-ending rain! We've just had the wettest December for 150 years, and it's still raining heavily! Apparently it's mostly caused by an unusual "La Nina" weather pattern, and a small cyclone that hit North Queensland in early December. Almost half of Queensland is flooded - an area about the size of France and Germany combined is under water! Many thousands of families across the State have had to temporarily abandon their homes. Fortunately where I live in Brisbane has been largely unaffected. My boat is on high ground; but the never-ending rain has stopped me working on it. It a bit weird really, as 6 months ago all the dams around Brisbane were nearly dry, and the city almost ran out of water! From one extreme to the other in only a few months! Still, hopefully everything will soon return to more normal conditions. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Yes you are right. You could use a solid shaft initially, which would make it heavier to lift in place, not a problem on something as small as the 26. With the pipe , one should drop the shaft in from the inside before sealing it. > > How are the floods affecting you in your part of Aussie? > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Brent ... > > > > > > I take it you mean that once the skeg has been fully welded in position, its leading edge pipe (that was left protruding from the top of the skeg to facilitate installation) is cut off so that it's flush with the interior hull skin? And then I guess the top of the pipe has to be sealed by welding a small plate over its top? > > > > > > Also, when you say "one should put a bit of solid shaft in the bottom of this pipe, below the gusset, after it is installed, to stop any rock collision from denting the pipe": By "gusset" do you mean the 1/2" plate that's positioned outside the hull between the leading edge of the skeg and the bottom of the hull on the centerline? Would not the bit of solid shaft need to be a very tight fit in the bottom of the pipe to be effective? Would it be easier/better to use solid shaft (instead of pipe) for the leading edge of the skeg (like the solid shaft at the leading edge of the twin keels)? But then again maybe an all-solid shaft at the leading edge of the skeg would be unnecessarily heavier? > > > > > > Thanks Brent! > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > Kim. > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > > ( ... although as we've just had the wettest December for > > > 150 years I haven't been able to do much work on the boat > > > recently! Much of Queensland is flooding; but fortunately > > > my boat is on high ground and not in danger of being launched > > > prematurely!) > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try. I leave the leading edge pipe on the skeg long, as it makes it easier to install, by pushing it thru a hole in the centreline, rather than trying to get it centred without this advantage. It has no structural advantage , once it's trimmed off flush. > > > > Its struggle enough lifting the skeg in position, without making it harder to keep it centred. > > > > For twin keelers, with the skeg exposed to rocks , one should put a bit of solid shaft in the bottom of this pipe, below the gusset, after it is installed, to stop any rock collision from denting the pipe. > ____________________________________________________________ > | 24891|24891|2011-01-08 18:58:51|martin|Boat building in the elements|I'll trade for some rain. Prairie Maid has enough snow on her from this last dump that you can't see anything of the cabin roof. It's literally almost a line from the bow roller to the pilot house roof. Oh joy the snow is supposed to stop tomorrow afternoon. Then it's going to drop into the minus 30's C. Can't wait to launch and head south for the winters. Martin....| 24892|24843|2011-01-09 19:30:39|haidan|Re: Truss Mast ?|http://www.yachtsales.com/msandy/listings/sa5615.html here's what I'm currently on, moving the boat down the east coast, some friends just bought it, really solid hull, nice and insulated and heated, the rig is kinda Ok really we haven't done a lot of sailing yet but it does have the appleal of a realy simple rig to make, the jib sheets right in against the poles. Instead of shrouds the outside poles are in compression and the the jack stay that falls straight down from the mast head is put under tension, the boat is totally built to take the strains with big full bulkheads around the mast/chainplates, if you could rig it up to take a boom it'd be great. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > I am talking about a mast that is normal in every other way, spreaders shrouds, etc. > > The German website http://www.yacht-mast.de/ claims that there is less wind noise. A regular closed-section mast, be it wood, aluminium or composite, has a drag coefficient transition speed of about 45-60 knots. (Masts with a wide slot, like in-mast furling might make noise like a whistle -- different mechanism.) The much smaller rods in a trust mast have a much higher transition speed (like 8 time higher). So if the noise is related to flow pattern, then the truss mast will generate the same type of noise, at a higher speed. Also, tips of things tend to create noise, from shed vortexes, however, with a truss mast, all the members are welded at both ends. I do not see a reason why a truss mast would be noisier. It is not hard to go stand near a small radio/TV transmission tower in a storm and listen. Ones of about 150-300 ft might be made out of sections the size of a triangular residential TV mast, however made out of solid steel rods. > > As for adding fixtures... One can weld on brackets to hold the spreaders. Shrouds can be wrapped around one of the uprights, at the point where a cross-brace reinforces it. Sail track would have to be steel, or held by clips/clamps of some sort. Everything else would be mounted on a clamp of some sort. A hose clamp would do for light stuff like lights. > > As for making it straight -- yes, a challenge, but with laser-pointers / levels, it would not be hard to make a 20-foot long work area that is straight, and then saw horses under the part beyond that is complete. As one works, the mast is slid out more and more onto the saw-horses. > > Still not sure why truss masts are not more common. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: maurogonzaga1940@... > Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 02:00:35 -0800 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? > > > --- On Fri, 1/7/11, David Frantz wrote: > > > > From: David Frantz > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? > > To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" > > Cc: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" > > Date: Friday, January 7, 2011, 12:09 AM > > Are you talking a free standing mast truss system or something with guy wires? I don't see how a free standing trust will be at all lighter than a pole. > > > > The big problem that I see is how do you attach booms, gangs and whatever without adding a lot of weight? My imagination says collars which add weight and stress concentration. > > > > I also think you underestimate the effort to build a straight trust. It would sort of like building a NASCAR frame except that manny more elements would need to be precisely cut. > > > > David A Frantz > > > > websterindustro4at4mac.com > > > > Sent from my iPhone. > > Did you consider the noise in the wind?mauro > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24893|24893|2011-01-10 14:02:39|Michael J|Yago 31'|Hello everybody, I'm a long time reader and enjoy this group a lot. Has anyone heard from Gerd recently? I have tried to contact him several times over the last year or so to get the 31' plans but haven't heard anything back. Is he still giving away these plans? Thanks for the info, Michael| 24894|24843|2011-01-10 15:55:49|brentswain38|Re: Truss Mast ?|There was an aluminium fishboat built in BC with that rig. They put a roller furler on both the head sails and the main. Looks like a good, solid rig. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "haidan" wrote: > > http://www.yachtsales.com/msandy/listings/sa5615.html > > here's what I'm currently on, moving the boat down the east coast, some friends just bought it, really solid hull, nice and insulated and heated, the rig is kinda Ok really we haven't done a lot of sailing yet but it does have the appleal of a realy simple rig to make, the jib sheets right in against the poles. Instead of shrouds the outside poles are in compression and the the jack stay that falls straight down from the mast head is put under tension, the boat is totally built to take the strains with big full bulkheads around the mast/chainplates, if you could rig it up to take a boom it'd be great. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > I am talking about a mast that is normal in every other way, spreaders shrouds, etc. > > > > The German website http://www.yacht-mast.de/ claims that there is less wind noise. A regular closed-section mast, be it wood, aluminium or composite, has a drag coefficient transition speed of about 45-60 knots. (Masts with a wide slot, like in-mast furling might make noise like a whistle -- different mechanism.) The much smaller rods in a trust mast have a much higher transition speed (like 8 time higher). So if the noise is related to flow pattern, then the truss mast will generate the same type of noise, at a higher speed. Also, tips of things tend to create noise, from shed vortexes, however, with a truss mast, all the members are welded at both ends. I do not see a reason why a truss mast would be noisier. It is not hard to go stand near a small radio/TV transmission tower in a storm and listen. Ones of about 150-300 ft might be made out of sections the size of a triangular residential TV mast, however made out of solid steel rods. > > > > As for adding fixtures... One can weld on brackets to hold the spreaders. Shrouds can be wrapped around one of the uprights, at the point where a cross-brace reinforces it. Sail track would have to be steel, or held by clips/clamps of some sort. Everything else would be mounted on a clamp of some sort. A hose clamp would do for light stuff like lights. > > > > As for making it straight -- yes, a challenge, but with laser-pointers / levels, it would not be hard to make a 20-foot long work area that is straight, and then saw horses under the part beyond that is complete. As one works, the mast is slid out more and more onto the saw-horses. > > > > Still not sure why truss masts are not more common. > > > > Matt > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: maurogonzaga1940@ > > Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 02:00:35 -0800 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? > > > > > > --- On Fri, 1/7/11, David Frantz wrote: > > > > > > > > From: David Frantz > > > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Truss Mast ? > > > > To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" > > > > Cc: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" > > > > Date: Friday, January 7, 2011, 12:09 AM > > > > Are you talking a free standing mast truss system or something with guy wires? I don't see how a free standing trust will be at all lighter than a pole. > > > > > > > > The big problem that I see is how do you attach booms, gangs and whatever without adding a lot of weight? My imagination says collars which add weight and stress concentration. > > > > > > > > I also think you underestimate the effort to build a straight trust. It would sort of like building a NASCAR frame except that manny more elements would need to be precisely cut. > > > > > > > > David A Frantz > > > > > > > > websterindustro4at4mac.com > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > > Did you consider the noise in the wind?mauro > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 24895|24891|2011-01-10 16:03:58|brentswain38|Re: Boat building in the elements|Time you moved to BC, the Canadian Banana belt. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "martin" wrote: > > I'll trade for some rain. Prairie Maid has enough snow on her from this last dump that you can't see anything of the cabin roof. It's literally almost a line from the bow roller to the pilot house roof. Oh joy the snow is supposed to stop tomorrow afternoon. Then it's going to drop into the minus 30's C. Can't wait to launch and head south for the winters. Martin.... > | 24896|24896|2011-01-10 16:57:42|ANDREW AIREY|Truss Mast|Do what the Dutch do on their Gaff rigged barges - mount the boom separately.Makes it easier to drop the mast if required cheers Andy Airey| 24898|24893|2011-01-11 11:17:06|kaovi@yahoo.com|Re: Yago 31'|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Michael J" wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > I'm a long time reader and enjoy this group a lot. Has anyone heard from Gerd recently? I have tried to contact him several times over the last year or so to get the 31' plans but haven't heard anything back. Is he still giving away these plans? > > Thanks for the info, > > Michael > Gerd died..his boat sinked..| 24899|24893|2011-01-11 12:01:31|Aaron Williams|Re: Yago 31'|That is a terrible thing to say. I hope it's not true on ether aspect. Aaron ________________________________ From: "kaovi@..." To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, January 11, 2011 7:17:05 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Yago 31'   --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Michael J" wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > I'm a long time reader and enjoy this group a lot. Has anyone heard from Gerd >recently? I have tried to contact him several times over the last year or so to >get the 31' plans but haven't heard anything back. Is he still giving away these >plans? > > Thanks for the info, > > Michael > Gerd died..his boat sinked.. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24900|24893|2011-01-11 12:14:16|mauro gonzaga|Re: Yago 31'|Not a good answer. :-( Please clarify. mauro --- On Tue, 1/11/11, kaovi@... wrote: From: kaovi@... Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Yago 31' To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 5:17 PM   --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Michael J" wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > I'm a long time reader and enjoy this group a lot. Has anyone heard from Gerd recently? I have tried to contact him several times over the last year or so to get the 31' plans but haven't heard anything back. Is he still giving away these plans? > > Thanks for the info, > > Michael > Gerd died..his boat sinked.. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24901|24893|2011-01-11 12:24:42|Ben Okopnik|Re: Yago 31'|On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 09:01:30AM -0800, Aaron Williams wrote: > That is a terrible thing to say. I hope it's not true on ether aspect. This "kaovi" has never posted to the group before, and his account on Yahoo appears to have been deleted at this point. Smells like a troll to me. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24902|24893|2011-01-11 13:09:51|Michael J|Re: Yago 31'|There's always one somewhere. Please do not start any trouble. I'm pretty sure that Gerd is still among the living. One of his other pages, gerdm.com, was last updated on 5 December. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, kaovi@... wrote: > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Michael J" wrote: > > > > Hello everybody, > > > > I'm a long time reader and enjoy this group a lot. Has anyone heard from Gerd recently? I have tried to contact him several times over the last year or so to get the 31' plans but haven't heard anything back. Is he still giving away these plans? > > > > Thanks for the info, > > > > Michael > > > Gerd died..his boat sinked.. > | 24903|24903|2011-01-11 13:48:58|rooster|yago|try looking yago-project.com plans are free for all| 24904|24903|2011-01-11 15:41:44|Michael J|Re: yago|Yeah, that's where I looked first. There is a link to download things, but the only thing you can download is the book. There is a link to download the plans, but you have to send him an email and he'll email them back to you. I have done that a few times over the last year or so and haven't heard back or received the plans. And, before anyone asks, "yes" I was very polite in my initial contact. Cheers --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "rooster" wrote: > > try looking > yago-project.com > plans are free for all > | 24905|19001|2011-01-11 16:29:43|brentswain38|Common screwups|Taking the deadwood ahead of the prop to a sharp point reduces drag there and gives one far better control in reverse, as the prop wash is then hitting a sharp edge rather than a flat surface. A flat surface there makes the prop blades give a thump when they pass the deadwood. This flat spot can have as much drag as a two bladed prop , under sail. Running the stern tube thru this caused distortion when welding the point to the stern tube. Evan went for the dead flat surface to prevent the distortion, which caused the above mentioned problems. He later came up with a good solution, putting a short ,larger size pipe over the part where the stern tube runs thru, and welding that to the stern tube. The larger pipe took the distortion. For a while, he did some this way and some the other way. Don't know why. When your prop hits a log, the odds of bending the shaft are somewhat determined by how close the bearing is to the prop, the closer the better. When you put the prop to far from the bearing, it also makes it hard to put a line cutter on your deadwood. Eliminating the flat deadwood ahead of the prop lets you put your prop a lot closer to the bearing, without the thump or cavitation from a prop starved for clear water. I made my line cutter by welding a piece of stainless 1/4 inch plate to the sharp point of the deadwood, with two holes in it. This lets me bolt a blade of 1/4 inch stainless to the deadwood on a 45 degree angle , the bottom tip of which touches the prop hub. When a line tightens on this blade , it is sliced instantly, eliminating potential damage to the tranny.| 24906|24906|2011-01-11 16:37:13|rooster|yago 31|nice free book...my bad about the site try duckworksmagazine.com I just printed out a pattern to make a model for fun...I have a BS 40 and launching very, very soon...good luck with yours.| 24907|24893|2011-01-12 12:20:27|mauro gonzaga|Re: Yago 31'|I felt the same smell and politely asked explanation. Hope this will encourage Gerd to speak (write) loud and clear. Long life to everybody. Mauro --- On Tue, 1/11/11, Ben Okopnik wrote: From: Ben Okopnik Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Yago 31' To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 6:24 PM   On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 09:01:30AM -0800, Aaron Williams wrote: > That is a terrible thing to say. I hope it's not true on ether aspect. This "kaovi" has never posted to the group before, and his account on Yahoo appears to have been deleted at this point. Smells like a troll to me. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24908|24908|2011-01-12 17:04:14|Denis Buggy|Re: GERD|MR KAOVI A GREAT DEAL OF WHAT HAPPENS IN A PERSONS LIFE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR REAL WORLD OF PHYSICS AND LOGIC ---THE MOST POWERFUL EMOTIONS AND DECISIONS IN A PERSONS LIFE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM EITHER -- A PERSON CAN HAVE MORE THAN ONE PHD AND STILL BE A FOOL AND A BIGOT AND A LOT MORE . I CANNOT PROVE A GREAT DEAL OF WHAT I BELIEVE HOWEVER LIFE HAS SHOWN ME THAT ALL AROUND THE WORLD WATER CAN BE DIVINED WITH A HAZEL STICK WITH GREAT ACCURACY AND THERE ARE MANY OTHER THINGS I KNOW TO BE FACTUAL HOWEVER I HAVE NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHY . MR KAOVI I DO KNOW THAT YOU CAN CROSS A BARRIER INTO ANOTHER PLACE WHERE A MAGNET OF YOUR OWN DESIGN WILL ATTRACT ALL KINDS OF TROUBLES TO YOUR EXISTENCE -- I THINK YOU HAVE CROSSED TO THAT PLACE. DB ----- Original Message ----- From: Aaron Williams To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Yago 31' That is a terrible thing to say. I hope it's not true on ether aspect. Aaron ________________________________ From: "kaovi@..." To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, January 11, 2011 7:17:05 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Yago 31' --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Michael J" wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > I'm a long time reader and enjoy this group a lot. Has anyone heard from Gerd >recently? I have tried to contact him several times over the last year or so to >get the 31' plans but haven't heard anything back. Is he still giving away these >plans? > > Thanks for the info, > > Michael > Gerd died..his boat sinked.. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24909|24906|2011-01-17 16:45:22|brentswain38|Re: yago 31|Where are you? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "rooster" wrote: > > nice free book...my bad about the site > try duckworksmagazine.com > I just printed out a pattern to make a model for fun...I have a BS 40 and launching very, very soon...good luck with yours. > | 24910|24910|2011-01-18 09:09:44|Alan|trim|I was wondering if anyone who has gotten their twin keelers in the water needed any ballast adjustment. Did you plan for this ahead of time? If so, how much wieght did you set aside for trim and where did you put it?| 24911|24849|2011-01-18 13:45:48|wild_explorer|Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|First, I was laughing after reading this story (see quoted text). Then I read Yahoo news yesterday: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110117/us_yblog_thelookout/scientists-warn-california-could-be-struck-by-winter-superstorm OK, still looks like Yahoo trying to pull some BS... Well... It looks like, I am changing my mind after reading official USA government website http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1312/ http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2683 It looks like it would be better to build a sailboat sooner than later. And it better to be made from steel ;) With predicted wind up to 125 knots, properly shaped cabin and pilothouse would act as good as sails. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > When the first white missionaries came to BC, they told the natives of how it once rained for 40 days and 40 nites and the whole world flooded. The natives laughed like hell, and said "Here it rains for 6 months of every year and the world doesn't flood . Whats this 40 days and 40 nites bullshit?" | 24912|24849|2011-01-18 14:02:45|Ben Okopnik|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 06:45:32PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > First, I was laughing after reading this story (see quoted text). > > Then I read Yahoo news yesterday: > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110117/us_yblog_thelookout/scientists-warn-california-could-be-struck-by-winter-superstorm > > OK, still looks like Yahoo trying to pull some BS... > > Well... It looks like, I am changing my mind after reading official USA government website > > http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1312/ > > http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2683 "For emergency planning purposes, scientists unveiled a hypothetical California scenario that describes a storm that could produce up to 10 feet of rain, cause extensive flooding (in many cases overwhelming the state’s flood-protection system) and result in more than $300 billion in damage." Please note the term "hypothetical scenario". We used to do those all the time when I was in Military Intelligence: "what's our response if a nuclear bomb goes off in Kansas City?", "how would we deal with a biologically-infected reservoir in San Diego?", "how do you inflict the greatest amount of damage in a large city behind enemy lines?", etc. This does not mean that it's actually *happening*; it's only a projection for planning purposes, a thought experiment. But the morons at that Yahoo blog are panicking with the standard "OMG!!! THE SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING..." blah, blah. This is the danger of letting the ignorant see the process of science. Since they don't understand what they're seeing, they try to extract the bits that they _do_ understand - and the bits they're always going to respond to are the ones that look like danger signals. -- "How do we respond if there's a natural disaster?" -- "OMG!!! THE SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A NATURAL DISASTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" [sigh] *Not* what this panic-prone country needs. I'm all for freedom of information, but dangerous implements *do* need to be kept out of the hands of children. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24913|24849|2011-01-18 14:38:34|David Frantz|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|It is all about scaring people and with most of the population growing numb with the global warming noise they needed to come up with something else scary. This isn't to discount natural tragedies but they happen every year in one place or another. It is almost a given that when California does sink into the ocean, the people that survive will wonder why the government didn't respond fast enough, why they weren't warned or something to deflect the thought that they need to be responsible for themselves. When something major does happen it is going to be very ugly as most of the big metropolitan areas seem to be populated with people with a give me mind set. Call me bitter if you want, but this is the way I see it. David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. On Jan 18, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 06:45:32PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: >> First, I was laughing after reading this story (see quoted text). >> >> Then I read Yahoo news yesterday: >> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110117/us_yblog_thelookout/scientists-warn-california-could-be-struck-by-winter-superstorm >> >> OK, still looks like Yahoo trying to pull some BS... >> >> Well... It looks like, I am changing my mind after reading official USA government website >> >> http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1312/ >> >> http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2683 > > "For emergency planning purposes, scientists unveiled a hypothetical > California scenario that describes a storm that could produce up to 10 > feet of rain, cause extensive flooding (in many cases overwhelming the > state’s flood-protection system) and result in more than $300 billion in > damage." > > Please note the term "hypothetical scenario". We used to do those all > the time when I was in Military Intelligence: "what's our response if a > nuclear bomb goes off in Kansas City?", "how would we deal with a > biologically-infected reservoir in San Diego?", "how do you inflict the > greatest amount of damage in a large city behind enemy lines?", etc. > This does not mean that it's actually *happening*; it's only a > projection for planning purposes, a thought experiment. But the morons > at that Yahoo blog are panicking with the standard "OMG!!! THE > SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING..." blah, blah. > > This is the danger of letting the ignorant see the process of science. > Since they don't understand what they're seeing, they try to extract the > bits that they _do_ understand - and the bits they're always going to > respond to are the ones that look like danger signals. > > -- "How do we respond if there's a natural disaster?" > > -- "OMG!!! THE SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A NATURAL > DISASTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" > > [sigh] *Not* what this panic-prone country needs. I'm all for freedom of > information, but dangerous implements *do* need to be kept out of the > hands of children. > > > Ben > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 24914|24849|2011-01-18 15:17:26|Paul Wilson|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|You will need a life preserver but don't use what they use in Australia :). Cheers, Paul A bizarre decision to ride an inflatable doll down a flood-swollen Yarra River blew up in a woman’s face yesterday when she lost her latex playmate in a rough patch. The incident prompted a warning from police that blow-up sex toys are “not recognised flotation devices’’. Police and a State Emergency Services crew were called to the rescue when the woman and a man, both 19, struck trouble at Warrandyte North about 4.30pm yesterday. They were floating down the river on two inflatable dolls and had just passed the Pound Bend Tunnel when the woman lost her toy in turbulent water. She clung to a floating tree, calling for help while the man stayed with her. Fortunately for the pair, a passer-by called triple zero while while a kayaker took life jackets to the pair. Police and the SES crew hauled the water-logged thrillseekers to safety. But, with Queensland in the grip of a deadly emergency and 50 rescues from flood waters around Victoria in the past week, police were not amused at the pair’s “stupid” actions. ‘‘We’ve got people busy with rescues and to have to divert resources to that sort of thing is not ideal,” said Senior Constable Wayne Wilson On 1/19/2011 8:38 AM, David Frantz wrote: > > It is all about scaring people and with most of the population growing > numb with the global warming noise they needed to come up with > something else scary. > > This isn't to discount natural tragedies but they happen every year in > one place or another. It is almost a given that when California does > sink into the ocean, the people that survive will wonder why the > government didn't respond fast enough, why they weren't warned or > something to deflect the thought that they need to be responsible for > themselves. > > When something major does happen it is going to be very ugly as most > of the big metropolitan areas seem to be populated with people with a > give me mind set. Call me bitter if you want, but this is the way I > see it. > > David A Frantz > websterindustro4at4mac.com > > Sent from my iPhone. > > On Jan 18, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Ben Okopnik > wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 06:45:32PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > >> First, I was laughing after reading this story (see quoted text). > >> > >> Then I read Yahoo news yesterday: > >> > >> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110117/us_yblog_thelookout/scientists-warn-california-could-be-struck-by-winter-superstorm > >> > >> OK, still looks like Yahoo trying to pull some BS... > >> > >> Well... It looks like, I am changing my mind after reading official > USA government website > >> > >> http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1312/ > >> > >> http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2683 > > > > "For emergency planning purposes, scientists unveiled a hypothetical > > California scenario that describes a storm that could produce up to 10 > > feet of rain, cause extensive flooding (in many cases overwhelming the > > state’s flood-protection system) and result in more than $300 billion in > > damage." > > > > Please note the term "hypothetical scenario". We used to do those all > > the time when I was in Military Intelligence: "what's our response if a > > nuclear bomb goes off in Kansas City?", "how would we deal with a > > biologically-infected reservoir in San Diego?", "how do you inflict the > > greatest amount of damage in a large city behind enemy lines?", etc. > > This does not mean that it's actually *happening*; it's only a > > projection for planning purposes, a thought experiment. But the morons > > at that Yahoo blog are panicking with the standard "OMG!!! THE > > SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING..." blah, blah. > > > > This is the danger of letting the ignorant see the process of science. > > Since they don't understand what they're seeing, they try to extract the > > bits that they _do_ understand - and the bits they're always going to > > respond to are the ones that look like danger signals. > > > > -- "How do we respond if there's a natural disaster?" > > > > -- "OMG!!! THE SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A NATURAL > > DISASTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" > > > > [sigh] *Not* what this panic-prone country needs. I'm all for freedom of > > information, but dangerous implements *do* need to be kept out of the > > hands of children. > > > > > > Ben > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo > ! Groups Links > > > > > > > > | 24915|24849|2011-01-18 15:21:04|BrdbMc@aol.com|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Hi , as some one who grew up in the "Four minute warning " time and being told how to survive a nuclear attack I would defend my right to be one of those you term morons. The real morons are those that thought they could survive and for exploding the first bomb not knowing what the outcome would be. As to natural disasters any information that can predict the risks in a logical way as to welcomed . I also believe the term Military Intelligence to be an oxymoron . Mikeafloat -----Original Message----- From: David Frantz To: origamiboats CC: origamiboats Sent: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:38 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? It is all about scaring people and with most of the population growing numb with he global warming noise they needed to come up with something else scary. This isn't to discount natural tragedies but they happen every year in one place r another. It is almost a given that when California does sink into the cean, the people that survive will wonder why the government didn't respond ast enough, why they weren't warned or something to deflect the thought that hey need to be responsible for themselves. When something major does happen it is going to be very ugly as most of the big etropolitan areas seem to be populated with people with a give me mind set. all me bitter if you want, but this is the way I see it. David A Frantz ebsterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. On Jan 18, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 06:45:32PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > First, I was laughing after reading this story (see quoted text). > > Then I read Yahoo news yesterday: > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110117/us_yblog_thelookout/scientists-warn-california-could-be-struck-by-winter-superstorm > > OK, still looks like Yahoo trying to pull some BS... > > Well... It looks like, I am changing my mind after reading official USA overnment website > > http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1312/ > > http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2683 "For emergency planning purposes, scientists unveiled a hypothetical California scenario that describes a storm that could produce up to 10 feet of rain, cause extensive flooding (in many cases overwhelming the state’s flood-protection system) and result in more than $300 billion in damage." Please note the term "hypothetical scenario". We used to do those all the time when I was in Military Intelligence: "what's our response if a nuclear bomb goes off in Kansas City?", "how would we deal with a biologically-infected reservoir in San Diego?", "how do you inflict the greatest amount of damage in a large city behind enemy lines?", etc. This does not mean that it's actually *happening*; it's only a projection for planning purposes, a thought experiment. But the morons at that Yahoo blog are panicking with the standard "OMG!!! THE SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING..." blah, blah. This is the danger of letting the ignorant see the process of science. Since they don't understand what they're seeing, they try to extract the bits that they _do_ understand - and the bits they're always going to respond to are the ones that look like danger signals. -- "How do we respond if there's a natural disaster?" -- "OMG!!! THE SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A NATURAL DISASTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" [sigh] *Not* what this panic-prone country needs. I'm all for freedom of information, but dangerous implements *do* need to be kept out of the hands of children. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik ------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! roups Links ----------------------------------- To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com o Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! roups Links Individual Email | Traditional http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24916|24910|2011-01-18 16:07:07|brentswain38|Re: trim|No one has so far, that I'm aware of . With the huge weight of personal possessions one puts on a boat , one can do a lot of trimming when deciding where to put the heavy things. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Alan" wrote: > > I was wondering if anyone who has gotten their twin keelers in the water needed any ballast adjustment. Did you plan for this ahead of time? If so, how much wieght did you set aside for trim and where did you put it? > | 24917|24849|2011-01-18 16:12:26|brentswain38|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Back to the title. For or someone living aboard, in which the only thing between him and homelessness is his boat, such a boat is anything but a luxury. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, BrdbMc@... wrote: > > > Hi , > as some one who grew up in the "Four minute warning " time and being told how to survive a > nuclear attack I would defend my right to be one of those you term morons. > The real morons are those that thought they could survive and for exploding the first bomb > not knowing what the outcome would be. > As to natural disasters any information that can predict the risks in a logical way as to > welcomed . > I also believe the term Military Intelligence to be an oxymoron . > > Mikeafloat > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Frantz > To: origamiboats > CC: origamiboats > Sent: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:38 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? > > > It is all about scaring people and with most of the population growing numb with > he global warming noise they needed to come up with something else scary. > This isn't to discount natural tragedies but they happen every year in one place > r another. It is almost a given that when California does sink into the > cean, the people that survive will wonder why the government didn't respond > ast enough, why they weren't warned or something to deflect the thought that > hey need to be responsible for themselves. > When something major does happen it is going to be very ugly as most of the big > etropolitan areas seem to be populated with people with a give me mind set. > all me bitter if you want, but this is the way I see it. > David A Frantz > ebsterindustro4at4mac.com > Sent from my iPhone. > On Jan 18, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 06:45:32PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > First, I was laughing after reading this story (see quoted text). > > > > Then I read Yahoo news yesterday: > > > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110117/us_yblog_thelookout/scientists-warn-california-could-be-struck-by-winter-superstorm > > > > OK, still looks like Yahoo trying to pull some BS... > > > > Well... It looks like, I am changing my mind after reading official USA > overnment website > > > > http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1312/ > > > > http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2683 > > "For emergency planning purposes, scientists unveiled a hypothetical > California scenario that describes a storm that could produce up to 10 > feet of rain, cause extensive flooding (in many cases overwhelming the > state’s flood-protection system) and result in more than $300 billion in > damage." > > Please note the term "hypothetical scenario". We used to do those all > the time when I was in Military Intelligence: "what's our response if a > nuclear bomb goes off in Kansas City?", "how would we deal with a > biologically-infected reservoir in San Diego?", "how do you inflict the > greatest amount of damage in a large city behind enemy lines?", etc. > This does not mean that it's actually *happening*; it's only a > projection for planning purposes, a thought experiment. But the morons > at that Yahoo blog are panicking with the standard "OMG!!! THE > SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING..." blah, blah. > > This is the danger of letting the ignorant see the process of science. > Since they don't understand what they're seeing, they try to extract the > bits that they _do_ understand - and the bits they're always going to > respond to are the ones that look like danger signals. > > -- "How do we respond if there's a natural disaster?" > > -- "OMG!!! THE SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A NATURAL > DISASTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" > > [sigh] *Not* what this panic-prone country needs. I'm all for freedom of > information, but dangerous implements *do* need to be kept out of the > hands of children. > > > Ben > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! > roups Links > > > > > ----------------------------------- > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > o Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! > roups Links > Individual Email | Traditional > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24918|24849|2011-01-18 17:44:07|wild_explorer|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Well, I see only responsible adults in this group who exploring opportunities or want to build good sailboat. I am looking from technical point of view at this report/simulation, which could be applied to building a sailboat. What can we extract from it? 1. Storm could last more than 40 days Boat must carry food supply let say for 60 days for the crew. It will be plenty of fresh water - water tankage could be used for extra fuel (with some protection of tank for easy clean up). 2. Wind speed can be 60 knots, and up to 125 knots. Looks like this is not a big deal for good ocean going sailboat. Such winds are not unusual in the ocean. Just need to be sure that the boat can handle it. 3. Flood If you are lucky, you might sail out to the ocean from your boat-building site :)). P.S. I think, steel origami-construction sailboat (properly built) can handle such storm. Best of all, it could be built to power-away stage in short period of time. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > [sigh] *Not* what this panic-prone country needs. I'm all for freedom of > information, but dangerous implements *do* need to be kept out of the > hands of children. > > > Ben | 24919|24849|2011-01-18 22:03:38|Ben Okopnik|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 03:20:45PM -0500, BrdbMc@... wrote: > > Hi , > as some one who grew up in the "Four minute warning " time and being told how to survive a > nuclear attack I would defend my right to be one of those you term morons. Given that you didn't understand a single thing that I said, that you're claiming to defend something that's not being attacked *and* that you have no capability of defending in any case, and that you're reacting to something completely irrelevant, I find your empty posturing and puffery absolutely hilarious. As to your "defending your right" to be in the moron camp - well, you said it, not me. But the shoe does indeed appear to fit quite well. > As to natural disasters any information that can predict the risks in a logical way as to > welcomed . Duh. And the sky is blue, too. And if you flip your lips, it goes "bibble-bibble-bibble". None of which has anything to do with what I said. I gather that reading comprehension was not your strong subject in junior high? Or, um, ever? > I also believe the term Military Intelligence to be an oxymoron . Oooh - *such* originality! I'm deeply wounded. Is ineffectuality your usual MO, or does it just happen online? Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24920|24849|2011-01-18 22:45:39|Ben Okopnik|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:43:58PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > I am looking from technical point of view at this report/simulation, > which could be applied to building a sailboat. What can we extract > from it? > > 1. Storm could last more than 40 days Unless you assume that the wind is always going to blow away, or at least parallel to land, and that you can get - oh, a couple of hundred miles away from shore ahead of such an event, a boat isn't going to be of any use. There's just no way to survive a lee shore in a 40+-day storm that's blowing toward land... and there's really no way to survive it in any case, since you're not going to be able to *eat* in a small boat - assuming that boat survives - in a 125-kt. storm. Even 60kt is enough to strain every nerve and muscle you have... having it last that long, well, that's not a high-probability survival scenario. > Looks like this is not a big deal for good ocean going sailboat. I'm sorry, but that's just not realistic. You have little to no control in a storm of that magnitude; all you'd be able to do, assuming the boat doesn't pitchpole or capsize in some other way, is lie ahull and hope to survive. > Such > winds are not unusual in the ocean. Yes, they are - even in the Southern Ocean, which is known for its extremely rough weather. Even most hurricanes don't get up to that - and of the few that do, that's in a tightly-defined center, which is fairly small. I've been in the eye of a hurricane - 110kt plus the 15kt forward motion (I was in the "dangerous" quadrant) - and at that wind speed, water literally *explodes* when a gust hits it. I had driven the boat aground, on the soft mud in a mangrove swamp in Culebra, PR, and was tied parallel to a bunch of mangroves; *all* the water in the 12'-deep channel beside me would empty out - turn into a fine spray, leaving the channel empty - when a gust of wind hit it. 5/8" and 3/4" nylon anchor lines that had been winched down stretched like taffy, and a brand-new 1/8" nylon flag halyard turned into a fuzzy, stranded mess after 6 hours of this. Despite winched-down anchor lines to starboard and equally winched-down lines to port, the boat was heeling a good 15 or 20 degrees, and the bullet-proof glass in my doghouse was bowing inward like it was made of bread-wrapper plastic. Imagining that this is survivable at sea in a small boat is... not reasonable. Extend that from 6 hours to 40 days, and the only way that it's survivable is in pure imagination. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24921|24849|2011-01-18 22:49:15|Ben Okopnik|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:17:35AM +1300, Paul Wilson wrote: > > A bizarre decision to ride an inflatable doll down a flood-swollen Yarra > River blew up in a woman’s face yesterday when she lost her latex > playmate in a rough patch. [laugh] Forwarded to my Australian friends. Given their sense of humor, which tends toward the rougher side, they'll appreciate it. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24922|24849|2011-01-19 06:53:42|BrdbMc@aol.com|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Hi, not sure we will ever agree on anything,but I am pleased my reply amused you. Well back to my own little world then. Mikeafloat -----Original Message----- From: Ben Okopnik To: origamiboats Sent: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 3:03 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 03:20:45PM -0500, BrdbMc@... wrote: Hi , as some one who grew up in the "Four minute warning " time and being told ow to survive a nuclear attack I would defend my right to be one of those you term morons. Given that you didn't understand a single thing that I said, that you're laiming to defend something that's not being attacked *and* that you ave no capability of defending in any case, and that you're reacting to omething completely irrelevant, I find your empty posturing and puffery bsolutely hilarious. As to your "defending your right" to be in the oron camp - well, you said it, not me. But the shoe does indeed appear o fit quite well. > As to natural disasters any information that can predict the risks in a ogical way as to welcomed . Duh. And the sky is blue, too. And if you flip your lips, it goes bibble-bibble-bibble". None of which has anything to do with what I aid. I gather that reading comprehension was not your strong subject in unior high? Or, um, ever? > I also believe the term Military Intelligence to be an oxymoron . Oooh - *such* originality! I'm deeply wounded. Is ineffectuality your sual MO, or does it just happen online? en - OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business xpert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik ----------------------------------- To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com o Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! roups Links Individual Email | Traditional http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24923|24923|2011-01-19 09:06:19|balljaseball|boat ports/window adhesive|hello, i read something about "armaflex" air conditioning tape being used for the bedding down of perspex windows, anyone know anything about this or another good way to do the same job, other than using sikaflex/mastic? thanks. jason| 24924|24849|2011-01-19 10:10:12|Matt Malone|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Thank you Ben for the first-hand account of a 125 knot storm. Even if one were clear of a lee shore, after 40 days of storm, the waves would build up to be monsters. And 40 days of random floating debris flying by, even sparse debris, would eventually bring something hard enough and stiff enough in contact with a small steel boat to cause a significant problem that could not be fixed during the remaining days of the storm. Lose a small port hole? Ok, block it with a cushion, piece of plywood and a brace and pump for 20 hours straight, that works for a normal storm. But who can pump for 2 weeks? And I agree the greatest practical problem would be daily things, like eating, even sleeping. And after 40 days of this, of being in the mix-master, even sanity would not be a certainty. This does not even begin to address equipment failures, particularly with the rudder, one's only means to moderate extreme motion to make it more tolerable, and give some small sense of control. And "fresh" water, in such a storm would be a lot more trouble I think. I am pretty sure any water catcher one put out on a small boat would catch a lot of ocean spray, in addition to rain, at any practical elevation above the water surface at 125 knots. Yumm, brackish water on top of everything else. Popping into such a situation, well fed and well rested, at the height of it, even for just 16 hours, dealing with other people's injuries, the constant dynamic chaos below, coping with boat problems that started a week ago, the tainted water, and probably food, would be more than enough for most people, probably me too. Coming through a more normal extreme storm of a few days, topping at 60-80 knots sustained is more than enough to test people. That is before considering breaking waves, being thrown/blown airborne off the crest of a wave, pitchpoling, super-troughs the boat might fall into and have walls of water snap closed from all sides. I would like to point out that a cement, bunker-like basement on high ground would not necessarily be sure protection for a sustained 125 knot storm. But at least one could expect to be able to eat and maybe sleep, as large dangerous things flew airborne by overhead ... sheet metal, houses torn to matchsticks, trees, empty shipping containers, maybe even vehicles ... Matt --------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:36:30 -0500 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:43:58PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > I am looking from technical point of view at this report/simulation, > which could be applied to building a sailboat. What can we extract > from it? > > 1. Storm could last more than 40 days Unless you assume that the wind is always going to blow away, or at least parallel to land, and that you can get - oh, a couple of hundred miles away from shore ahead of such an event, a boat isn't going to be of any use. There's just no way to survive a lee shore in a 40+-day storm that's blowing toward land... and there's really no way to survive it in any case, since you're not going to be able to *eat* in a small boat - assuming that boat survives - in a 125-kt. storm. Even 60kt is enough to strain every nerve and muscle you have... having it last that long, well, that's not a high-probability survival scenario. > Looks like this is not a big deal for good ocean going sailboat. I'm sorry, but that's just not realistic. You have little to no control in a storm of that magnitude; all you'd be able to do, assuming the boat doesn't pitchpole or capsize in some other way, is lie ahull and hope to survive. > Such > winds are not unusual in the ocean. Yes, they are - even in the Southern Ocean, which is known for its extremely rough weather. Even most hurricanes don't get up to that - and of the few that do, that's in a tightly-defined center, which is fairly small. I've been in the eye of a hurricane - 110kt plus the 15kt forward motion (I was in the "dangerous" quadrant) - and at that wind speed, water literally *explodes* when a gust hits it. I had driven the boat aground, on the soft mud in a mangrove swamp in Culebra, PR, and was tied parallel to a bunch of mangroves; *all* the water in the 12'-deep channel beside me would empty out - turn into a fine spray, leaving the channel empty - when a gust of wind hit it. 5/8" and 3/4" nylon anchor lines that had been winched down stretched like taffy, and a brand-new 1/8" nylon flag halyard turned into a fuzzy, stranded mess after 6 hours of this. Despite winched-down anchor lines to starboard and equally winched-down lines to port, the boat was heeling a good 15 or 20 degrees, and the bullet-proof glass in my doghouse was bowing inward like it was made of bread-wrapper plastic. Imagining that this is survivable at sea in a small boat is... not reasonable. Extend that from 6 hours to 40 days, and the only way that it's survivable is in pure imagination. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24925|24849|2011-01-19 10:45:13|BrdbMc@aol.com|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Hi In late august, early September of 1965 while heading for Santiago De Cuba on a steamship hurricane Betsy decided to give use a good fright.At one stage we were in the so called calm spot the eye.From memory we tried several times to clear the eye and make open water each time being at the mercy of the weather.The top speed of the ship was about 13 knots but we finished up clearing Betsy some 150 miles further away from Cuba than when we entered.In doing so the ship rolled more than once passed its designed roll.Most of the pumps for cooling etc loosing suction until the ship came back to a more normal level.We arrived in Santiago with just 4 hours steaming left. Normal function like eating or even using the head were modified to suit the situation.My way of trying to sleep ,after being thrown over the bunk beds storm boards was to put four beer cases on edge and wedge myself between them and the bulk head. From memory I think we suffered for just over 5 days anyone in the same sort of circumstance in a smaller craft would have had a very rough time. The experience is not one I would like to repeat but I never worried about being in a normal storm after that. On nearing Santiago the US Coastguard tried to stop us but that's another story . Mikeafloat -----Original Message----- From: Matt Malone To: origamiboats Sent: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:10 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? Thank you Ben for the first-hand account of a 125 knot storm. Even if one were lear of a lee shore, after 40 days of storm, the waves would build up to be onsters. And 40 days of random floating debris flying by, even sparse debris, ould eventually bring something hard enough and stiff enough in contact with a mall steel boat to cause a significant problem that could not be fixed during he remaining days of the storm. Lose a small port hole? Ok, block it with a ushion, piece of plywood and a brace and pump for 20 hours straight, that works or a normal storm. But who can pump for 2 weeks? And I agree the greatest practical problem would be daily things, like eating, ven sleeping. And after 40 days of this, of being in the mix-master, even anity would not be a certainty. This does not even begin to address equipment ailures, particularly with the rudder, one's only means to moderate extreme otion to make it more tolerable, and give some small sense of control. And fresh" water, in such a storm would be a lot more trouble I think. I am retty sure any water catcher one put out on a small boat would catch a lot of cean spray, in addition to rain, at any practical elevation above the water urface at 125 knots. Yumm, brackish water on top of everything else. opping into such a situation, well fed and well rested, at the height of it, ven for just 16 hours, dealing with other people's injuries, the constant ynamic chaos below, coping with boat problems that started a week ago, the ainted water, and probably food, would be more than enough for most people, probably me too. Coming through a more normal extreme storm of a ew days, topping at 60-80 knots sustained is more than enough to test people. hat is before considering breaking waves, being thrown/blown airborne off the rest of a wave, pitchpoling, super-troughs the boat might fall into and have alls of water snap closed from all sides. I would like to point out that a cement, bunker-like basement on high ground ould not necessarily be sure protection for a sustained 125 knot storm. But t least one could expect to be able to eat and maybe sleep, as large dangerous hings flew airborne by overhead ... sheet metal, houses torn to matchsticks, rees, empty shipping containers, maybe even vehicles ... Matt --------------------------------------------------- o: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com rom: ben@... ate: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:36:30 -0500 ubject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:43:58PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > I am looking from technical point of view at this report/simulation, > which could be applied to building a sailboat. What can we extract > from it? > > 1. Storm could last more than 40 days Unless you assume that the wind is always going to blow away, or at least parallel to land, and that you can get - oh, a couple of hundred miles away from shore ahead of such an event, a boat isn't going to be of any use. There's just no way to survive a lee shore in a 40+-day storm that's blowing toward land... and there's really no way to survive it in any case, since you're not going to be able to *eat* in a small boat - assuming that boat survives - in a 125-kt. storm. Even 60kt is enough to strain every nerve and muscle you have... having it last that long, well, that's not a high-probability survival scenario. > Looks like this is not a big deal for good ocean going sailboat. I'm sorry, but that's just not realistic. You have little to no control in a storm of that magnitude; all you'd be able to do, assuming the boat doesn't pitchpole or capsize in some other way, is lie ahull and hope to survive. > Such > winds are not unusual in the ocean. Yes, they are - even in the Southern Ocean, which is known for its extremely rough weather. Even most hurricanes don't get up to that - and of the few that do, that's in a tightly-defined center, which is fairly small. I've been in the eye of a hurricane - 110kt plus the 15kt forward motion (I was in the "dangerous" quadrant) - and at that wind speed, water literally *explodes* when a gust hits it. I had driven the boat aground, on the soft mud in a mangrove swamp in Culebra, PR, and was tied parallel to a bunch of mangroves; *all* the water in the 12'-deep channel beside me would empty out - turn into a fine spray, leaving the channel empty - when a gust of wind hit it. 5/8" and 3/4" nylon anchor lines that had been winched down stretched like taffy, and a brand-new 1/8" nylon flag halyard turned into a fuzzy, stranded mess after 6 hours of this. Despite winched-down anchor lines to starboard and equally winched-down lines to port, the boat was heeling a good 15 or 20 degrees, and the bullet-proof glass in my doghouse was bowing inward like it was made of bread-wrapper plastic. Imagining that this is survivable at sea in a small boat is... not reasonable. Extend that from 6 hours to 40 days, and the only way that it's survivable is in pure imagination. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com o Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! roups Links Individual Email | Traditional http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24926|24849|2011-01-19 10:51:03|Ben Okopnik|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:10:04AM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > Thank you Ben for the first-hand account of a 125 knot storm. [grin] Not as if I'm likely to ever forget it. I actually cut a piece out of that flag halyard and saved it; it looks like a 3/4" thick fuzzy caterpillar (from brand-new 1/8" braided nylon.) Oh, and did I mention the *NOISE*? It sounds like all the banshees of hell screaming and shrieking at the same time. Something like a train going by 6 inches away from your ear. At one point, the boat heeled over so far toward land - again, despite four anchor rodes off to the opposite side, all of them winched down as tightly as I could manage - that it bent my stern railing (1-1/4" stanchions welded to the toerail pipe) inward about an inch. I had to do some tricky stuff with a car later to pull it back out. By the time it got down to 50 or 60 kt, I actually felt happy and comfortable. Nice, mild breeze...:) > Even if one were clear of a lee shore, after 40 days of storm, the > waves would build up to be monsters. And - perhaps worst of all - break. There's no way, as far as I know, that a wave can build to a height that's appropriate to a 125-kt wind and not break. Besides, as I dimly recall, there's some sort of formula for pitchpoling... something like 2X the waterline length in wave height creates enough steepness that you can't avoid it (I'm probably wrong about the ratio, but it's something like that.) Again, if I recall correctly, the height of a fully-developed wave in the open ocean for a steady 60kt wind is something like 76'. Overall, I think that if you're looking to survive an event like that at sea, you need a nuke-powered submarine (40 days without surfacing is, as far as I know, isn't possible for the greatest majority of subs out there - but again, I'm no expert on the subject. Despite having been in a sub movie with Sean Connery. :) > This does not even > begin to address equipment failures, particularly with the rudder, > one's only means to moderate extreme motion to make it more tolerable, > and give some small sense of control. Yep. Spending 40 days at sea without a break would be quite a psychological challenge for most people. Doing it in a storm for that long... that's going beyond every known limit of human endurance. > I would like to point out that a cement, bunker-like basement on high > ground would not necessarily be sure protection for a sustained 125 > knot storm. But at least one could expect to be able to eat and > maybe sleep, as large dangerous things flew airborne by overhead ... > sheet metal, houses torn to matchsticks, trees, empty shipping > containers, maybe even vehicles ... During one of the smaller hurricanes I experienced while I was in Puerto Rico, I got a photo of my girlfriend's daughter standing on the bow of my boat while the wind was blowing about 55kt. Later, after developing the film, I noticed that in the clear sky above the beach behind her (which had a stand of coconut palms), you could see a horizontally-flying coconut. I've still got that photo. I also got to see sheet metal roofing flying at about 90mph in another 'cane. Puerto Ricans used to joke about "flying razors" with regard to those things, and it was a general article of faith that at least one person a year got "topped" by one. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24927|24849|2011-01-19 11:00:55|Ben Okopnik|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:44:58AM -0500, BrdbMc@... wrote: > > At one stage we were in the so called calm spot > the eye.From memory we tried several times to clear the eye and make open water each time being > at the mercy of the weather. The eye of a hurricane is only about 5 miles across, and there's nothing to "clear"; at that point, the max force of the hurricane surrounds you, with the only distinction being whether you exit it into the "navigable" quadrant or the "dangerous" one (rather funny names when you think about it, but that's what they're called.) The distinction is that the first one has wind speeds _minus_ the forward speed of the hurricane (that's the SE quadrant, in a typical 'cane travelling W) and the latter is wind speed _plus_ the forward motion. Since the difference can be about 30kt, it can mean survival vs. non. When you pass the eye wall, you go from a nearly dead calm to max wind speed in about 10 seconds. It seriously makes your ears pop. A lot of destruction happens right at that point. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24928|24849|2011-01-19 12:35:47|Matt Malone|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Yes, flying things have way more power than one imagines. Never been in a hurricane, but I have had the task of carefully examining some of the damage. In one non-hurricane situation a pumpkin went into a windshield. You might think it would mainly splat, but no, went right through, like one might expect for a coconut or a rock, and the pumpkin was still mainly intact. If the projectile is stiff and reasonably strong and hits in the right way so that the impact is a concentrated blow, it is amazing what an ordinary object can put a hole in that we would normally think of as substantial structures. A coconut, a picket from a picket fence, even, believe it or not, cut straw, yes the stuff animals lay in, can make some pretty unexpected holes in stuff. I have seen holes clear through steel, even 8-10 gauge steel guarding on a machine, that you could put two fists through. With a 125 knot sustained storm, flying stuff might bounce and tumble dozens of miles before finally falling into a gully and stopping. A shredded sheet-metal building might send sheet-metal flying for 100 miles downwind before it wedges into something. The aluminum recyclers go into the Florida Everglades to get pieces of siding after hurricanes all the time. I imagine an unrestrained spar, sufficiently propelled by a 125 knot wind, would skewer a steel boat like a wooden arrow through a tin can. Heck, I would be worried about the 2 " aluminium tubes that hold up the little dock-side tent at the marina. Velocity squared, and the arrow-effect (caused by fast-travelling, internally-reflected stress waves in a solid) can mean a radical difference been what is possible at 50 knots, which I have been on a boat in, and 125 knots which I hope not to be. Matt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:50:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? ..... During one of the smaller hurricanes I experienced while I was in Puerto Rico, I got a photo of my girlfriend's daughter standing on the bow of my boat while the wind was blowing about 55kt. Later, after developing the film, I noticed that in the clear sky above the beach behind her (which had a stand of coconut palms), you could see a horizontally-flying coconut. I've still got that photo. I also got to see sheet metal roofing flying at about 90mph in another 'cane. Puerto Ricans used to joke about "flying razors" with regard to those things, and it was a general article of faith that at least one person a year got "topped" by one. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24929|24849|2011-01-19 13:07:49|wild_explorer|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Thanks Ben for very informative and colorful story. As I see, on a wind map of East US coast winds 60-130 knots have been encountered. there is even standard for buildings and flagpoles requiring that they should withstand such wind speed. So, it looks like it is only news for West US coast. Requirements to flagpoles (wall thickness, materials) could be applied to free standing masts. I do not think that even USGS had simulated such storm with continuous 60-125 knot of wind lasting more than 40 days. More likely this might be just "strong hurricane with rain afterward" simulation. Nylon lines, as I remember, is very dangerous - they brake without warning under extreme load. Better not to be around. Steel cable are better - at least you can see it is going to give up (you have time to hide before it brakes) Another lesson from your story - do not save on glass/material for portholes/windows. The force of wind is power of 2 of wind speed. Make portholes/windows as small and thick as practical. Use stronger available material as well. Have inside porthole covers in case material brakes. Where did you get bullet-proof glass? How thick was it and what was the size of windows? The size of boat could make a difference (capsize in longitudinal direction), but most important is seaworthiness. That what we are after here. Submarine is better choice, but we are limited only up to 100ft origami sailboat as DIY (more likely 40-60 ft as reasonable DIY) So, what key feature would you like to see if you were building origami-boat which POSSIBLE can face hurricane at sea? To wait in a boat near the land looks line not a very good option (too many possible flying debris). But may be I am wrong. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:43:58PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > channel empty - when a gust of wind hit it. 5/8" and 3/4" nylon anchor > lines that had been winched down stretched like taffy, and a brand-new > 1/8" nylon flag halyard turned into a fuzzy, stranded mess after 6 hours > of this. Despite winched-down anchor lines to starboard and equally > winched-down lines to port, the boat was heeling a good 15 or 20 > degrees, and the bullet-proof glass in my doghouse was bowing inward > like it was made of bread-wrapper plastic. > > Imagining that this is survivable at sea in a small boat is... not > reasonable. Extend that from 6 hours to 40 days, and the only way that > it's survivable is in pure imagination. > > > Ben | 24930|24849|2011-01-19 13:28:57|Ben Okopnik|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:35:44PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > A coconut, a picket from a picket fence, even, believe it or not, cut > straw, yes the stuff animals lay in, can make some pretty unexpected > holes in stuff. I have seen holes clear through steel, even 8-10 > gauge steel guarding on a machine, that you could put two fists > through. One of the common post-'cane "amusements" in the islands is to wander about afterwards and see what got stuck in where - assuming that you don't have more pressing business. Mostly, everybody just sorta ambles around, a bit stunned and taking a day or two to recover. > Velocity squared, and the arrow-effect (caused by fast-travelling, > internally-reflected stress waves in a solid) can mean a radical > difference been what is possible at 50 knots, which I have been on a > boat in, and 125 knots which I hope not to be. You're not kidding. People tend to forget about that "squared" part in 1/2MV^2 (kinetic energy.) Assuming minimum deformation/essentially instant deceleration at impact: # 1-lb weight moving at 50kt / ~83fps 0.5 * (50 * 6000 / 3600)^2 = ~3,472 ft/lb # Same weight at 100kt 0.5 * (100 * 6000 / 3600)^2 = ~13,889 ft/lb Double the speed, four times the force. But even a 3500 lb impact would spoil your day. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24931|24849|2011-01-19 15:13:10|Matt Malone|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|> So, what key feature would you like to see if you were building origami-boat which POSSIBLE can face hurricane at sea? Humm, building a boat just for such a situation.... I think I would first make it much longer and finer at both ends than a current orgami, have two bulkheads, and no electronics or vital gear in the forward or aft compartment. I would then partially flood them before the storm. This would reduce buoyancy moments forward and aft, and increase forward-aft inertia, greatly reducing the chance of pitch-poling I would keep a substantial positive buoyancy in the middle so to be sure not to fully transition to a submarine too easily. I would want the waves to wash over the deck, meters deep, use a snorkle in the mast if necessary. Truly huge waves would wash over more than 10 meters deep. To help this, I would have normal decks, maybe with high toe-rails, not round-edged, so that water on top of the boat does not shed off too quickly. If fully submerged, I would want the upward settling speed of the boat, the point where lift/bouyancy is countered by drag, to be very slow, like half the speed that the water surface rises and falls in a swell. So long as the boat can ride on top with the upwelling of water under it, and dry decks, it would. As soon as water covers the deck, it would tend to allow the wave to wash over. For low-slope waves (if large, then they are long-period) the boat would pitch a little and ride over them. For steeper walls of water, like a wave close to breaking, the boat would fully bury into them with a fine bow, barely pitching at all, much like a surfer would move through large waves to get out past the break. In the core of a wave, there is less water movement. The entire boat would pitch less. The only purpose of the small amount of flotation left fore and aft is to make sure the boat returns to a generally deck flat orientation after it is submerged. The ride would be much smoother, if one could get used to the view out the port holes going dark green nearly half the time. Essentially, a boat designed to be a semi-submarine in truly awful weather. When the weather passes, pump the water from the fore and aft sections, dry out the deck chairs, spools of rope, sealed jugs of stuff, maybe put the cushions back in a cabin or two and go back to cruising, riding much higher out of the water and easily carving waves like a racing schooner of the early 20th century. The design would be quite impractical unless one lived in water-world, where there were no berthing fees by the foot. Also, one would have to have the ability to put ballast at a deep draft (possibly a lowering keel) again to assure the small flotation moments and the ballast moment tend to return the boat to a deck-level orientation even when submerged. What was a 36 footer might have to be 60 footer to have something close to the same dry volume when in partially flooded mode. This would all but rule out many of the simple advantages of the Brent designs. Oh yes, when partially flooded, the water sloshing around inside the forward and aft sections wastes energy, especially if there is some mesh like chain link, that it has to flow through. It is like having shock absorbers on the boat. One would still have to pray not to encounter anything more solid than water out there. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24932|24849|2011-01-19 16:50:53|brentswain38|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Over the last 30 years, origami boats have proven beyond all reasonable doubt their ability to handle all of these conditions and more. Some still claim, however , that their calculations to the contrary carry more weight than 30 years of actual experience. However, this site is for more practical and realistic people. I like to have the reassuruance of 60 days water aboard, despite water catchement ,of which there is plenty of of opportunity in most storms, and watermakers. I once left Bora Bora with 55 gallons of water aboard. Initially, I was very careful with my water use. I left a bucket under the gooseneck an, as the squalls kept topping things up, by the time I was nearing Hilo, I used water for whatever I wanted, and arrived in Hilo with 50 gallons aboard. I've also had much drier trade wind passages. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Well, I see only responsible adults in this group who exploring opportunities or want to build good sailboat. > > I am looking from technical point of view at this report/simulation, which could be applied to building a sailboat. What can we extract from it? > > 1. Storm could last more than 40 days > > Boat must carry food supply let say for 60 days for the crew. It will be plenty of fresh water - water tankage could be used for extra fuel (with some protection of tank for easy clean up). > > 2. Wind speed can be 60 knots, and up to 125 knots. > > Looks like this is not a big deal for good ocean going sailboat. Such winds are not unusual in the ocean. Just need to be sure that the boat can handle it. > > 3. Flood > > If you are lucky, you might sail out to the ocean from your boat-building site :)). > > P.S. I think, steel origami-construction sailboat (properly built) can handle such storm. Best of all, it could be built to power-away stage in short period of time. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > [sigh] *Not* what this panic-prone country needs. I'm all for freedom of > > information, but dangerous implements *do* need to be kept out of the > > hands of children. > > > > > > Ben > | 24933|24849|2011-01-19 17:04:16|brentswain38|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Mooring from the stern, if your are in a sufficiently protected harbor as to make swells a non issue , means lying stern to the wind like a dead duck ,instead of the sheering around you get with your bow to the wind. This also drastically reduces loads on your gear and rudder. Put in a set of foam earplugs, as the noise is the worst stress raiser in such conditions, and you may end up sleeping like an underpaid night watchman. Even at sea, earplugs make a huge difference in a storm. I've often thought that well tied down cargo containers could be the most hurricane proof and affordable homes possible in places like Haiti. Returning them empty to China is almost a money losing proposition, and paying the Chines slightly more than they would save by shipping them home, could make places like Haiti far more hurricane and earthquake proof than they ever dreamed. No need to get out of bed in an earthquake or hurricane, if your home is made from a a cargo container. I hear there is a company doing just that, in hurricane blasted Guam. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:10:04AM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Thank you Ben for the first-hand account of a 125 knot storm. > > [grin] Not as if I'm likely to ever forget it. I actually cut a piece > out of that flag halyard and saved it; it looks like a 3/4" thick fuzzy > caterpillar (from brand-new 1/8" braided nylon.) Oh, and did I mention > the *NOISE*? It sounds like all the banshees of hell screaming and > shrieking at the same time. Something like a train going by 6 inches > away from your ear. > > At one point, the boat heeled over so far toward land - again, despite > four anchor rodes off to the opposite side, all of them winched down as > tightly as I could manage - that it bent my stern railing (1-1/4" > stanchions welded to the toerail pipe) inward about an inch. I had to do > some tricky stuff with a car later to pull it back out. > > By the time it got down to 50 or 60 kt, I actually felt happy and > comfortable. Nice, mild breeze...:) > > > Even if one were clear of a lee shore, after 40 days of storm, the > > waves would build up to be monsters. > > And - perhaps worst of all - break. There's no way, as far as I know, > that a wave can build to a height that's appropriate to a 125-kt wind > and not break. Besides, as I dimly recall, there's some sort of formula > for pitchpoling... something like 2X the waterline length in wave height > creates enough steepness that you can't avoid it (I'm probably wrong > about the ratio, but it's something like that.) Again, if I recall > correctly, the height of a fully-developed wave in the open ocean for a > steady 60kt wind is something like 76'. > > Overall, I think that if you're looking to survive an event like that at > sea, you need a nuke-powered submarine (40 days without surfacing is, as > far as I know, isn't possible for the greatest majority of subs out > there - but again, I'm no expert on the subject. Despite having been in > a sub movie with Sean Connery. :) > > > This does not even > > begin to address equipment failures, particularly with the rudder, > > one's only means to moderate extreme motion to make it more tolerable, > > and give some small sense of control. > > Yep. Spending 40 days at sea without a break would be quite a > psychological challenge for most people. Doing it in a storm for that > long... that's going beyond every known limit of human endurance. > > > I would like to point out that a cement, bunker-like basement on high > > ground would not necessarily be sure protection for a sustained 125 > > knot storm. But at least one could expect to be able to eat and > > maybe sleep, as large dangerous things flew airborne by overhead ... > > sheet metal, houses torn to matchsticks, trees, empty shipping > > containers, maybe even vehicles ... > > During one of the smaller hurricanes I experienced while I was in Puerto > Rico, I got a photo of my girlfriend's daughter standing on the bow of > my boat while the wind was blowing about 55kt. Later, after developing > the film, I noticed that in the clear sky above the beach behind her > (which had a stand of coconut palms), you could see a > horizontally-flying coconut. I've still got that photo. I also got to > see sheet metal roofing flying at about 90mph in another 'cane. Puerto > Ricans used to joke about "flying razors" with regard to those things, > and it was a general article of faith that at least one person a year > got "topped" by one. > > > Ben > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24934|24849|2011-01-19 17:09:04|brentswain38|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|You would still have more resistance to being skewered in a steel boat than any other hull material. The solution seems to be getting as far away from civilization and its metal missiles as possible, and back in the swamp. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Yes, flying things have way more power than one imagines. Never been in a hurricane, but I have had the task of carefully examining some of the damage. In one non-hurricane situation a pumpkin went into a windshield. You might think it would mainly splat, but no, went right through, like one might expect for a coconut or a rock, and the pumpkin was still mainly intact. If the projectile is stiff and reasonably strong and hits in the right way so that the impact is a concentrated blow, it is amazing what an ordinary object can put a hole in that we would normally think of as substantial structures. A coconut, a picket from a picket fence, even, believe it or not, cut straw, yes the stuff animals lay in, can make some pretty unexpected holes in stuff. I have seen holes clear through steel, even 8-10 gauge steel guarding on a machine, that you could put two fists through. > > With a 125 knot sustained storm, flying stuff might bounce and tumble dozens of miles before finally falling into a gully and stopping. A shredded sheet-metal building might send sheet-metal flying for 100 miles downwind before it wedges into something. The aluminum recyclers go into the Florida Everglades to get pieces of siding after hurricanes all the time. > > I imagine an unrestrained spar, sufficiently propelled by a 125 knot wind, would skewer a steel boat like a wooden arrow through a tin can. > > Heck, I would be worried about the 2 " aluminium tubes that hold up the little dock-side tent at the marina. > > Velocity squared, and the arrow-effect (caused by fast-travelling, internally-reflected stress waves in a solid) can mean a radical difference been what is possible at 50 knots, which I have been on a boat in, and 125 knots which I hope not to be. > > Matt > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: ben@... > Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:50:51 -0500 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ..... > > During one of the smaller hurricanes I experienced while I was in Puerto > > Rico, I got a photo of my girlfriend's daughter standing on the bow of > > my boat while the wind was blowing about 55kt. Later, after developing > > the film, I noticed that in the clear sky above the beach behind her > > (which had a stand of coconut palms), you could see a > > horizontally-flying coconut. I've still got that photo. I also got to > > see sheet metal roofing flying at about 90mph in another 'cane. Puerto > > Ricans used to joke about "flying razors" with regard to those things, > > and it was a general article of faith that at least one person a year > > got "topped" by one. > > > > Ben > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24935|24849|2011-01-19 17:15:04|brentswain38|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Roan , one of my 36 footers encountered close to 100 knot winds coming home from Hawaii a few years ago. He ran with it, and didn't have time to get any kind of drogue out. The wind vane kept her under control, running with it. He also didn't get a chance to tie off his KISS wind generator, and the elctricaql lockdown was inadequate for stopping it. It bellowed smoke till it had burned itself out. The skipper now lives far inland. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:43:58PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > > > I am looking from technical point of view at this report/simulation, > > which could be applied to building a sailboat. What can we extract > > from it? > > > > 1. Storm could last more than 40 days > > Unless you assume that the wind is always going to blow away, or at > least parallel to land, and that you can get - oh, a couple of hundred > miles away from shore ahead of such an event, a boat isn't going to be > of any use. There's just no way to survive a lee shore in a 40+-day > storm that's blowing toward land... and there's really no way to survive > it in any case, since you're not going to be able to *eat* in a small > boat - assuming that boat survives - in a 125-kt. storm. Even 60kt is > enough to strain every nerve and muscle you have... having it last that > long, well, that's not a high-probability survival scenario. > > > Looks like this is not a big deal for good ocean going sailboat. > > I'm sorry, but that's just not realistic. You have little to no control > in a storm of that magnitude; all you'd be able to do, assuming the boat > doesn't pitchpole or capsize in some other way, is lie ahull and hope to > survive. > > > Such > > winds are not unusual in the ocean. > > Yes, they are - even in the Southern Ocean, which is known for its > extremely rough weather. Even most hurricanes don't get up to that - and > of the few that do, that's in a tightly-defined center, which is fairly > small. I've been in the eye of a hurricane - 110kt plus the 15kt forward > motion (I was in the "dangerous" quadrant) - and at that wind speed, > water literally *explodes* when a gust hits it. I had driven the boat > aground, on the soft mud in a mangrove swamp in Culebra, PR, and was > tied parallel to a bunch of mangroves; *all* the water in the 12'-deep > channel beside me would empty out - turn into a fine spray, leaving the > channel empty - when a gust of wind hit it. 5/8" and 3/4" nylon anchor > lines that had been winched down stretched like taffy, and a brand-new > 1/8" nylon flag halyard turned into a fuzzy, stranded mess after 6 hours > of this. Despite winched-down anchor lines to starboard and equally > winched-down lines to port, the boat was heeling a good 15 or 20 > degrees, and the bullet-proof glass in my doghouse was bowing inward > like it was made of bread-wrapper plastic. > > Imagining that this is survivable at sea in a small boat is... not > reasonable. Extend that from 6 hours to 40 days, and the only way that > it's survivable is in pure imagination. > > > Ben > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24936|24849|2011-01-19 17:37:52|Ben Okopnik|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:14:54PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > Roan , one of my 36 footers encountered close to 100 knot winds > coming home from Hawaii a few years ago. He ran with it, and didn't > have time to get any kind of drogue out. The wind vane kept her under > control, running with it. He also didn't get a chance to tie off his > KISS wind generator, and the elctricaql lockdown was inadequate for > stopping it. It bellowed smoke till it had burned itself out. > The skipper now lives far inland. Same for the couple that I bought "Ulysses" from. They spent a rally bad night in their previous boat during a hurricane (the boat half-sank at the dock), bought "Ulysses" when it was over, and ran into a 30-kt breeze the first time they went sailing after that - blew out a foresail. They sold me the boat, moved into a motorhome ashore, and were exploring Canada - *far* inland - last I heard. What we've been discussing here is 60-125kt blowing for 40 days. A number of well-built boats can indeed survive 100kt - because it never lasts, and never develops the full wave heights associated with that speed (e.g., it would take 4 days of 60-kt winds over a 1000+-mile fetch in 1000'+ deep water to develop the associated max wave height.) I have no doubt whatsoever that one of your boats would outlast almost any other boat her size in extremely rough conditions - but no small boat can survive the kind of weather we've been discussing. Most big ships wouldn't survive it either. Fortunately, that kind of focused energy doesn't exist in our atmosphere (you'd have to go to Jupiter to find reactions that sustained and violent.) It really is nothing more than a projection. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24937|24849|2011-01-19 17:40:22|martin demers|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|swing keel, low draft and hide in a small protected bay! To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 17:37:41 -0500 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:14:54PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > Roan , one of my 36 footers encountered close to 100 knot winds > coming home from Hawaii a few years ago. He ran with it, and didn't > have time to get any kind of drogue out. The wind vane kept her under > control, running with it. He also didn't get a chance to tie off his > KISS wind generator, and the elctricaql lockdown was inadequate for > stopping it. It bellowed smoke till it had burned itself out. > The skipper now lives far inland. Same for the couple that I bought "Ulysses" from. They spent a rally bad night in their previous boat during a hurricane (the boat half-sank at the dock), bought "Ulysses" when it was over, and ran into a 30-kt breeze the first time they went sailing after that - blew out a foresail. They sold me the boat, moved into a motorhome ashore, and were exploring Canada - *far* inland - last I heard. What we've been discussing here is 60-125kt blowing for 40 days. A number of well-built boats can indeed survive 100kt - because it never lasts, and never develops the full wave heights associated with that speed (e.g., it would take 4 days of 60-kt winds over a 1000+-mile fetch in 1000'+ deep water to develop the associated max wave height.) I have no doubt whatsoever that one of your boats would outlast almost any other boat her size in extremely rough conditions - but no small boat can survive the kind of weather we've been discussing. Most big ships wouldn't survive it either. Fortunately, that kind of focused energy doesn't exist in our atmosphere (you'd have to go to Jupiter to find reactions that sustained and violent.) It really is nothing more than a projection. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24938|24938|2011-01-19 18:13:05|Aaron Williams|Boom section|Anyone Wanting to build a boom I have an aluminum extrusion that is 4" X 8" with sail track. Length is 16' and wall thickness is .15" It is near Sooke and I'll take $250 OBO Aaron ________________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24939|24849|2011-01-19 18:36:17|wild_explorer|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Matt, Thanks for such good and detailed post. I tried to apply you ideas to 3D model. Just did a quick check on Brent's single keel 36 footer 3D model. It requires some modifications to cabin/pilothouse (to make it more aerodynamic)... Will take about 1-2 days for modification. Air intakes will need modification as well to allow only air to go through. Setting a boat's waterline almost up to a deck level allows to load about 10-12 tonnes of cargo(food, water???). If keep center of gravity of this load at designed waterline level (as on normal boat) - it will allow to have ultimate stability 180 deg (with very good chance to stay upright all the time) for such submerged hull. Modified boat will still have about 10 tones reserve bouncy (pilothouse/cabin) This is just fast test - for Brent's 36 footer 3D model (still need some work). But it convinced me it could be used for such extreme event. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > Humm, building a boat just for such a situation.... I think I would first make it much longer and finer at both ends than a current orgami, have two bulkheads, and no electronics or vital gear in the forward or aft compartment. I would then partially flood them before the storm. This would reduce buoyancy moments forward and aft, and increase forward-aft inertia, greatly reducing the chance of pitch-poling I would keep a substantial positive buoyancy in the middle so to be sure not to fully transition to a submarine too easily. I would want the waves to wash over the deck, meters deep, use a snorkle in the mast if necessary. Truly huge waves would wash over more than 10 meters deep. > | 24940|24849|2011-01-19 20:03:20|Ben Okopnik|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 05:57:59PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > Thanks Ben for very informative and colorful story. As I see, on a > wind map of East US coast winds 60-130 knots have been encountered. > there is even standard for buildings and flagpoles requiring that they > should withstand such wind speed. So, it looks like it is only news > for West US coast. Ah-ah, now let's not confuse the terms of the conversation. The discussion was about _sustained_ winds of 60-125, not "encountered". For "encountered", we've got Hurricane Camille (205-210mph) and a number of others. "Encountered" isn't an issue - well, certainly not the issue that "sustained" is. > I do not think that even USGS had simulated such storm with continuous > 60-125 knot of wind lasting more than 40 days. More likely this might > be just "strong hurricane with rain afterward" simulation. That would be realistic - and thus, quite survivable in a range of situations. The other isn't. > Nylon lines, as I remember, is very dangerous - they brake without > warning under extreme load. Better not to be around. Steel cable are > better - at least you can see it is going to give up (you have time to > hide before it brakes) Oh, dear. I'm sorry, but that "without warning" stuff is a pure myth. Nylon has a *huge* reserve of strength between its working load and its breaking strength; if I recall correctly, steel cable doesn't have nearly that much. Besides, have you ever tried using steel cable to tie off to, say, a bunch of mangrove roots? It's wonderful stuff, no doubt of it, but you can't use it for everything. > Another lesson from your story - do not save on glass/material for > portholes/windows. Agreed! > Where did you get bullet-proof glass? How thick was it and what was > the size of windows? It came with the boat; part of the original design. The doghouse windows were about 2'6" square, 3 of them facing forward and 2 somewhat smaller ones on the sides. Maybe 3/16" glass/plastic sandwich, with the maker's stamp on it mentioning its bulletproof qualities. > So, what key feature would you like to see if you were building > origami-boat which POSSIBLE can face hurricane at sea? I think that Matt's design would be quite seaworthy; however, given sufficient warning, I'd just take a plane. :) If I was restricted to using a boat to survive it, I'd want that 100-footer - and I'd want it to be as fast as possible. A friend of mine in the islands had a multihull that he used every summer, for a number of years, to run away from hurricanes: when one was within 300 miles or so, he'd whip his sails up and be in Venezuela in a day. The rest of us would beat our guts out trying to batten down for it, strip the decks, find a spot in a mangrove swamp... his summers were a lot easier and more pleasant than ours. Being able to sail at 15kt or so, to me, is one of the ultimate safety measures. Hurricanes almost never travel faster than that - and given the Coriolis effect, on a long tack away from one, you _know_ which way to run. > To wait in a boat near the land looks line not a very good option (too > many possible flying debris). But may be I am wrong. Again, agreed. Getting away from land - well, as I've often said to people: "the ocean isn't that dangerous. It's the sharp, hard bits around the edges." Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24941|24849|2011-01-19 23:36:53|Matt Malone|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Wild, I based that on imagining dynamic response via general trends, and my readings of the effects of flooding on boats. It also assumes the boat stays bow to the waves, maybe by a drogue. However, before doing any preliminary calculations, please note, the "flooded" condition is only for the most extreme storms, when you don't want to go anywhere, just survive. In any other case, one would want to un-flood the fore and aft parts and have a more regular, even if deep-draft boat. Loading a regular boat down with an extra 10-12 tonnes of wood and water is not the idea it would be a slug when one wants to move. If one had such a deeply sunk boat, all the time, which makes no sense for a sailboat, then one would want to look more at a modern submarine-like design. The design only makes sense (might only make sense) with a some-times, partially flooded use, in extreme conditions. Also, I did say, it was entirely impractical, compared to the advantages of the more roomy-for-their-LOA BS designs, twin keels, shoal draft, ability to beach with a tide, etc. Would it not be better to just have a BS design, with a compact pilothouse (to reduce windage) and just sail in the seasons, and areas where really extreme storms are exceedingly rare ? Seems a lot of work to design a boat to do something that most would just schedule to avoid. If you are really serious about designing a doomsday boat to survive and allow its passengers to endure 40 days peaking at 125 knots, then, proper dynamic modeling would be need to make sure there was not some other effect that is being overlooked. Also, at some points in a really big breaking wave, I cannot rule out that it might go end over end 10 times in a row, before settling to deck up again. With all the extra weight inside, that is a lot of force. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 23:36:08 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? Matt, Thanks for such good and detailed post. I tried to apply you ideas to 3D model. Just did a quick check on Brent's single keel 36 footer 3D model. It requires some modifications to cabin/pilothouse (to make it more aerodynamic)... Will take about 1-2 days for modification. Air intakes will need modification as well to allow only air to go through. Setting a boat's waterline almost up to a deck level allows to load about 10-12 tonnes of cargo(food, water???). If keep center of gravity of this load at designed waterline level (as on normal boat) - it will allow to have ultimate stability 180 deg (with very good chance to stay upright all the time) for such submerged hull. Modified boat will still have about 10 tones reserve bouncy (pilothouse/cabin) This is just fast test - for Brent's 36 footer 3D model (still need some work). But it convinced me it could be used for such extreme event. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > Humm, building a boat just for such a situation.... I think I would first make it much longer and finer at both ends than a current orgami, have two bulkheads, and no electronics or vital gear in the forward or aft compartment. I would then partially flood them before the storm. This would reduce buoyancy moments forward and aft, and increase forward-aft inertia, greatly reducing the chance of pitch-poling I would keep a substantial positive buoyancy in the middle so to be sure not to fully transition to a submarine too easily. I would want the waves to wash over the deck, meters deep, use a snorkle in the mast if necessary. Truly huge waves would wash over more than 10 meters deep. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24942|24849|2011-01-20 00:53:43|Ben Okopnik|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:36:44PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > If you are really serious about designing a doomsday boat to survive > and allow its passengers to endure 40 days peaking at 125 knots, then, > proper dynamic modeling would be need to make sure there was not some > other effect that is being overlooked. Also, at some points in a > really big breaking wave, I cannot rule out that it might go end over > end 10 times in a row, before settling to deck up again. With all > the extra weight inside, that is a lot of force. Actually, Matt, we already have a proven design: three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high, a window on top and a door in the side. Oh yeah - don't forget the elephant-driven propulsion system, either. Sorry, there's no sail included in the plans... Do me a personal favor, though - *please* leave the mosquito pair behind this time! :) Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24943|24943|2011-01-20 04:18:54|Kim|When only a steel boat will do!|Hello all ... Last week Brisbane got well and truly flooded! (http://x.co/LrX9) Over the last month regional Queensland had been experiencing major flooding. Last week much of it flowed into the Brisbane River, and the river level rose 4.5 meters above normal. A flood of about this severity last happened in Brisbane in 1974. Since then various dams have been built which were supposed to prevent the city flooding; but there was just too much water. During a big flood in 1893 the water levels were 8.5 meters. It will happen again. It's fascinating to watch the extremely powerful force of the water in a big river in full flood. Numerous boats live in the river, and very large numbers of them were severely damaged, either by being hit by other floating objects or breaking their moorings and then smashing into other things. Anyway, assuming you might be interested I've put together and uploaded to YouTube a small video consisting of clips from local TV news broadcasts from last week showing footage of some of the boats losing the battle against the river's onslaught: http://x.co/LrXa Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________| 24944|24944|2011-01-20 07:23:50|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|adding twin keels to classic|Brent, Could I install twin keels on my classic(37ft steel, 18,000 lbs), it looklikes your first boat "Pipedream", I now have 5ft8in of draft. I am already moving the rudder aft and on a skeg. Has it been done before on classics? if it is doable, where the keels should be located? could I have less than 4ft of draft? Martin.| 24945|24944|2011-01-20 08:21:28|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: adding twin keels to classic|Brent may have a better handle, but if a (reasonably educated) opinion is welcome ... Why not. In a steel boat, you can always adjust things later. However, in a boat everything affects everything. Some things to ponder; Changing to twin keels may affect rolling ... either positively or negatively. You gotta make sure the inside mounting and bracing is adequate. The twisting, and in a collision or grounding, impact loads are very heavy. The origamii boats have thicker hulls than most boats their size. They are also very strong, relatively. Some boats have twin keels ... maybe look at a boat of similar length, displacement (ie steel) and look at the positions and sizes of their keels. Maybe ask their captains how she tracks, turns, rolls ? From everything I have seen over the last 8 years of studying this, mostly full time, there are no hard and fast absolutes. Most things work, kind of. And two perfectly competent designers and or builders can do things very differently, and both may work. I read where someone cut up a steel hull, welded a long extension maybe 3 m or 10 feet in the middle, and went on their way. I myself would be willing to do the same. Length waterline is very good, for everything except marine fees, which is what this site is not about. > Brent, > > Could I install twin keels on my classic(37ft steel, 18,000 lbs), it > looklikes your first boat "Pipedream", > I now have 5ft8in of draft. > I am already moving the rudder aft and on a skeg. > > Has it been done before on classics? > if it is doable, where the keels should be located? > could I have less than 4ft of draft? > > Martin. > > __._, [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24946|24944|2011-01-20 09:10:54|martin demers|Re: adding twin keels to classic|my boat hull is thin, 1/8, but it has frames I would reinforce at the point of attachment of the keels anyway. maybe I could replate the bottom of the hull to 3/16 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: gcode.fi@... Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:16:04 +0100 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] adding twin keels to classic Brent may have a better handle, but if a (reasonably educated) opinion is welcome ... Why not. In a steel boat, you can always adjust things later. However, in a boat everything affects everything. Some things to ponder; Changing to twin keels may affect rolling ... either positively or negatively. You gotta make sure the inside mounting and bracing is adequate. The twisting, and in a collision or grounding, impact loads are very heavy. The origamii boats have thicker hulls than most boats their size. They are also very strong, relatively. Some boats have twin keels ... maybe look at a boat of similar length, displacement (ie steel) and look at the positions and sizes of their keels. Maybe ask their captains how she tracks, turns, rolls ? From everything I have seen over the last 8 years of studying this, mostly full time, there are no hard and fast absolutes. Most things work, kind of. And two perfectly competent designers and or builders can do things very differently, and both may work. I read where someone cut up a steel hull, welded a long extension maybe 3 m or 10 feet in the middle, and went on their way. I myself would be willing to do the same. Length waterline is very good, for everything except marine fees, which is what this site is not about. > Brent, > > Could I install twin keels on my classic(37ft steel, 18,000 lbs), it > looklikes your first boat "Pipedream", > I now have 5ft8in of draft. > I am already moving the rudder aft and on a skeg. > > Has it been done before on classics? > if it is doable, where the keels should be located? > could I have less than 4ft of draft? > > Martin. > > __._, [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24947|24947|2011-01-20 09:14:28|richard.barwell@talk21.com|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?Wednesday, 19 January|Would a nearly completely flooded boat still float in very aeriated water? I believe this is a normal state for water in extreme conditions, although I have no experience of this. Rich B [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24948|24948|2011-01-20 10:46:19|akenai|Westerbeke 44B|I am looking at a westerbeke 44B engine. The new model is the same only with ISO HP adjustment to 38 HP. Used motor estimated to be 1400 hours. swapped out for new model for around the world cruse. Anyone have info as good or bad choice, Parts easy to get or not average life span? Aaron| 24949|24947|2011-01-20 10:51:35|Matt Malone|Re: A purposely, partially flooded boat|Yes, it would continue to float above the solid water line -- the dissolved air content of solid water is too small to be accounted for in bulk flotation. Besides, as an intentional flooding, one would trim the degree of flood to maintain the desired flotation. I never anticipated one would allow uncontrolled flooding. An emulsion of air and water is different however. Yes, in very high winds, the surface of the water is "mashed up", and the transition from mainly air to mainly water might be thick -- I would not be surprised to see an average of a foot of less-dense water/air emulsion on the surface. Ben implied, at moments, 12 feet of water disappeared into spray. I think that would be more the exception than the rule, and one should trim for the average. The boat still will not sink into the solid water below, so, the boat is not sinking even if bubbly water appears over the windows most of the time. Trim the flooding level for comfort: comfort and reassurance looking out the windows, and for comfort of motion. Also, a flooded boat would not float in the deep rushing "froth" produced immediately after a wave breaks -- no heavily ballasted boat would, really, but a normal boat sure would ride higher out of the solid water below and more into the froth. It would seem this would make the flooded boat safer -- the solid water below is not moving as fast, and staying down in it would tend to resist extreme movements. A boat with a lot of buoyancy might be seized by the rushing froth, accelerated sharply, only to come to a sudden stop later when meeting up with solid water again. This would produce two impacts for the occupants of the boat. The flooded boat would see less sky and move a lot less. The more extreme pressures and forces on a boat derive from the sudden impact of a breaking wave on a boat, a wall of water that impacts the hull over a large area simultaneously. These impacts, caused by the water meeting the boat at speed are like the water hammer caused if one shuts off a bathroom tap too quickly. The hammer is actually a genuine super-sonic shockwave -- but more of what you hear in the plumbing is the sound of the pipes rattling in response to the shock wave. It is these sudden impacts over an area that produce momentary, extreme pressures on the boat, the ports, windows and gear. The impacts can be related to the force of an explosion, because the sudden stop of the water against the side of the boat does produce exactly the same pressures as the explosion that would generate the identical super-sonic shock waves in the water. So when people say it sounds like an explosion, it is because, in all measured quantities of pressure, and sound inside, it is the same. It would seem both a flooded boat and a high-floating boat, would experience a similar instantaneous impact from a wall of water. A flooded boat may experience less, if it has already started to submarine into the face of the wave. Yes, after the initial impact, a floaty boat would tend to start moving more with the water. Consequently, the deck of a flooded boat would be more forcefully washed by the fast-flowing froth that the boat that has a tendency to start moving with the froth. I would not underestimate the forces put on things by this rushing stream of water, and these forces are proportional to density times velocity squared. Water has a density 1000 times greater than air, so, think of what a 50 knot wind can do, and multiply by 1000 to see what a 50 knot water current can do. I was surfing once when a hurricane was just off shore, and had my surfboard broken into 3 pieces right under me by what felt like a heavy, forceful river of sand, but was only about a foot deep stream of rushing water associated with the transition to a breaking wave. The water grabbed the board and bent it into the shape of the forming curl, the board resisted and end up in three segments, in the curve of the curl. I felt it snap under me, and its report against me thoroughly convinced me of the magnitude of the forces going on. That of course was a moment before meeting the solid water in front of the wave. (I was too high up on the wave, not in front of the curl like I should have been, when the wave started to break.) A flooded boat would feel those flowing pressures, suctions and pressures on its deck, coach and equipment. A more floaty boat that takes on a speed half way between that of the rushing froth and the solid water below will experience half the pressures, distributed over more of the hull, because 2x (1/2)^2 = 1/2. A boat that stays more fixed to the non-moving water will experience twice the pressures, on a smaller area, almost entirely, on the deck, coach and equipment. (Yes, Newton's law states there has to be an opposite force if the boat does not move much, and that opposite force is a far smaller pressure on a much larger area of the hull that is well-seated into the solid water below.) Yes, looking out the windows it may appear that the rush of water has ripped well-fixed things off the boat -- it may well do that. In an intentionally flooded boat, this effect could double. This forceful deck wash is the price one must pay to have a boat with a far smoother motion in extreme conditions. And in persistent foam, or spume, a flooded boat would have no flotation at all, no boat would. Being well-fixed to the solid water line means, with a combination of froth and spume, more of a flooded boat will momentarily disappear, that is true. One would have to get more used to not seeing the sky out the windows. One would have to think of the boat as a basement, and be more confident that water would not get into the remaining space in the boat and turn it into a full submarine. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: richard.barwell@... Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:14:20 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?Wednesday, 19 January, 2011 23:36 Would a nearly completely flooded boat still float in very aeriated water? I believe this is a normal state for water in extreme conditions, although I have no experience of this. Rich B [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24950|24947|2011-01-20 11:11:59|Matt Malone|Re: A purposely, partially flooded boat|Yeah, forgot something. Take a boat designed not to flood intentionally. If a boat starts to flood because of some damage, on the top of the boat in particular, like the coach roof-to-deck joint suffers a problem say, or a window gets busted inward, or sucked off the side of the boat, while the boat might wallow more smoothly, the increased deck-wash forces, that might be double that on the undamaged boat, might then eventually rip the initial problem into a bigger one. So, once one starts sinking, things can even get more violent on the deck, and could potentially cause the problems to get worse, faster. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24951|24849|2011-01-20 12:14:58|wild_explorer|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Matt, My simulated conversion was based on standard Brent's 36 footer. I do not see any reason specially design "ark-type" boat. Better to explore modification option of existing/built design. Reversible modification-simulation was done to cabin/pilothouse - adding plates going from top edges of pilothouse/cabin to the hull (covering bow, side deck and foot-well). Flooding of the boat does not look like a good option. Securely attached barrels inside the boat filled with water would be better option. It easier to empty some of them if more flotation is required. If emptied, barrels could serve as extra bouncy if boat is damaged. Complete flooding of the part of the boat may create hydro-shock effect - impact energy will be transferred from the hull trough the water of flooded compartment. So, inside construction need to be stronger than hull shell - which is usually not the case. Partially flooded water creates "free surface effect" and reduce stability. P.S. Like Brent pointed out, 20 or 40 ft shipping container might be a very good survival option for someone who does not have boat. It has surprisingly good stability if set/ballasted to proper draft. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Wild, I based that on imagining dynamic response via general trends, and my readings of the effects of flooding on boats. It also assumes the boat stays bow to the waves, maybe by a drogue. However, before doing any preliminary calculations, please note, the "flooded" condition is only for the most extreme storms, when you don't want to go anywhere, just survive. In any other case, one would want to un-flood the fore and aft parts and have a more regular, even if deep-draft boat. Loading a regular boat down with an extra 10-12 tonnes of wood and water is not the idea it would be a slug when one wants to move. If one had such a deeply sunk boat, all the time, which makes no sense for a sailboat, then one would want to look more at a modern submarine-like design. The design only makes sense (might only make sense) with a some-times, partially flooded use, in extreme conditions. > | 24952|24944|2011-01-20 12:42:52|Ben Okopnik|Re: adding twin keels to classic|On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 02:16:04PM +0100, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > I read where someone cut up a steel hull, welded a long extension maybe > 3 m or 10 feet in the middle, and went on their way. > I myself would be willing to do the same. A friend of mine down in the islands did just that. Jean-Loupe is a retired Swiss cowboy (yep, you read that right. I didn't know they had'em either :) whose approach to life is mostly "grab a welder and a big hammer; it'll come out all right in the end." He bought the (home-built) boat, dirt-cheap, from a friend of his in Switzerland who was about to give up on the project, got a diesel engine out of a Mercedes in a junkyard, crammed it into the boat, and went sailing. When he was in Mauritius, he decided that the boat wasn't long enough - so he grabbed a welder and a big hammer and added 6 or 7 feet. It worked out just fine... and I can definitely tell you that Jean-Loupe is _not_ a boat designer. :) Last I saw him and Denise, they were headed for Australia. Hell of a guy, and a real sailor. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24953|24943|2011-01-20 16:18:10|brentswain38|Re: When only a steel boat will do!|Hope you are on high ground. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hello all ... > > Last week Brisbane got well and truly flooded! (http://x.co/LrX9) Over the last month regional Queensland had been experiencing major flooding. Last week much of it flowed into the Brisbane River, and the river level rose 4.5 meters above normal. A flood of about this severity last happened in Brisbane in 1974. Since then various dams have been built which were supposed to prevent the city flooding; but there was just too much water. During a big flood in 1893 the water levels were 8.5 meters. It will happen again. > > It's fascinating to watch the extremely powerful force of the water in a big river in full flood. Numerous boats live in the river, and very large numbers of them were severely damaged, either by being hit by other floating objects or breaking their moorings and then smashing into other things. > > Anyway, assuming you might be interested I've put together and uploaded to YouTube a small video consisting of clips from local TV news broadcasts from last week showing footage of some of the boats losing the battle against the river's onslaught: http://x.co/LrXa > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > | 24954|24849|2011-01-20 16:19:32|brentswain38|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Bow to the waves is almost impossible with a sloop rig, with any kind of drogue.It will simply lie beam on. Stern to the waves is easy. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Wild, I based that on imagining dynamic response via general trends, and my readings of the effects of flooding on boats. It also assumes the boat stays bow to the waves, maybe by a drogue. However, before doing any preliminary calculations, please note, the "flooded" condition is only for the most extreme storms, when you don't want to go anywhere, just survive. In any other case, one would want to un-flood the fore and aft parts and have a more regular, even if deep-draft boat. Loading a regular boat down with an extra 10-12 tonnes of wood and water is not the idea it would be a slug when one wants to move. If one had such a deeply sunk boat, all the time, which makes no sense for a sailboat, then one would want to look more at a modern submarine-like design. The design only makes sense (might only make sense) with a some-times, partially flooded use, in extreme conditions. > > Also, I did say, it was entirely impractical, compared to the advantages of the more roomy-for-their-LOA BS designs, twin keels, shoal draft, ability to beach with a tide, etc. > > Would it not be better to just have a BS design, with a compact pilothouse (to reduce windage) and just sail in the seasons, and areas where really extreme storms are exceedingly rare ? > > Seems a lot of work to design a boat to do something that most would just schedule to avoid. > > If you are really serious about designing a doomsday boat to survive and allow its passengers to endure 40 days peaking at 125 knots, then, proper dynamic modeling would be need to make sure there was not some other effect that is being overlooked. Also, at some points in a really big breaking wave, I cannot rule out that it might go end over end 10 times in a row, before settling to deck up again. With all the extra weight inside, that is a lot of force. > > Matt > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: williswildest@... > Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 23:36:08 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, > > > > Thanks for such good and detailed post. I tried to apply you ideas to 3D model. > > > > Just did a quick check on Brent's single keel 36 footer 3D model. It requires some modifications to cabin/pilothouse (to make it more aerodynamic)... Will take about 1-2 days for modification. Air intakes will need modification as well to allow only air to go through. > > > > Setting a boat's waterline almost up to a deck level allows to load about 10-12 tonnes of cargo(food, water???). If keep center of gravity of this load at designed waterline level (as on normal boat) - it will allow to have ultimate stability 180 deg (with very good chance to stay upright all the time) for such submerged hull. > > > > Modified boat will still have about 10 tones reserve bouncy (pilothouse/cabin) > > > > This is just fast test - for Brent's 36 footer 3D model (still need some work). But it convinced me it could be used for such extreme event. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > Humm, building a boat just for such a situation.... I think I would first make it much longer and finer at both ends than a current orgami, have two bulkheads, and no electronics or vital gear in the forward or aft compartment. I would then partially flood them before the storm. This would reduce buoyancy moments forward and aft, and increase forward-aft inertia, greatly reducing the chance of pitch-poling I would keep a substantial positive buoyancy in the middle so to be sure not to fully transition to a submarine too easily. I would want the waves to wash over the deck, meters deep, use a snorkle in the mast if necessary. Truly huge waves would wash over more than 10 meters deep. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24955|24944|2011-01-20 16:22:25|brentswain38|Re: adding twin keels to classic|It could be done. I'd put the leading edge of the keels , where they meet the hull, about 6 inches behind the mast. You will want to put in 4- 3x3x1/2 inch angles across them to carry the weight to the curves of the bilge and to the centreline, or put in a centreline tank , as I do on my twin keelers, and tie the angle webs to that. 4 ft draft is possible. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > Brent, > > Could I install twin keels on my classic(37ft steel, 18,000 lbs), it looklikes your first boat "Pipedream", > I now have 5ft8in of draft. > I am already moving the rudder aft and on a skeg. > > Has it been done before on classics? > if it is doable, where the keels should be located? > could I have less than 4ft of draft? > > Martin. > | 24956|24944|2011-01-20 16:24:03|brentswain38|Re: adding twin keels to classic|Twin keels drastically dampen rolling. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > Brent may have a better handle, but if a (reasonably educated) opinion > is welcome ... > Why not. > > In a steel boat, you can always adjust things later. > However, in a boat everything affects everything. > > Some things to ponder; > Changing to twin keels may affect rolling ... either positively or > negatively. > You gotta make sure the inside mounting and bracing is adequate. > The twisting, and in a collision or grounding, impact loads are very heavy. > The origamii boats have thicker hulls than most boats their size. They > are also very strong, relatively. > > Some boats have twin keels ... maybe look at a boat of similar length, > displacement (ie steel) and look at the positions and sizes of their keels. > Maybe ask their captains how she tracks, turns, rolls ? > > From everything I have seen over the last 8 years of studying this, > mostly full time, there are no hard and fast absolutes. > Most things work, kind of. > And two perfectly competent designers and or builders can do things very > differently, and both may work. > > I read where someone cut up a steel hull, welded a long extension maybe > 3 m or 10 feet in the middle, and went on their way. > I myself would be willing to do the same. > Length waterline is very good, for everything except marine fees, which > is what this site is not about. > > > > Brent, > > > > Could I install twin keels on my classic(37ft steel, 18,000 lbs), it > > looklikes your first boat "Pipedream", > > I now have 5ft8in of draft. > > I am already moving the rudder aft and on a skeg. > > > > Has it been done before on classics? > > if it is doable, where the keels should be located? > > could I have less than 4ft of draft? > > > > Martin. > > > > __._, > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24957|24944|2011-01-20 16:29:04|brentswain38|Re: adding twin keels to classic|Jack Carson did that to one of my 36 footers , made it a 44, and is happily cruising Mexico at the moment. Ahh, the wonders of steel! --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 02:16:04PM +0100, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > > > I read where someone cut up a steel hull, welded a long extension maybe > > 3 m or 10 feet in the middle, and went on their way. > > I myself would be willing to do the same. > > A friend of mine down in the islands did just that. Jean-Loupe is a > retired Swiss cowboy (yep, you read that right. I didn't know they > had'em either :) whose approach to life is mostly "grab a welder and a > big hammer; it'll come out all right in the end." He bought the > (home-built) boat, dirt-cheap, from a friend of his in Switzerland who > was about to give up on the project, got a diesel engine out of a > Mercedes in a junkyard, crammed it into the boat, and went sailing. When > he was in Mauritius, he decided that the boat wasn't long enough - so he > grabbed a welder and a big hammer and added 6 or 7 feet. It worked out > just fine... and I can definitely tell you that Jean-Loupe is _not_ a > boat designer. :) > > Last I saw him and Denise, they were headed for Australia. Hell of a > guy, and a real sailor. > > > Ben > -- > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > | 24958|24943|2011-01-20 16:53:52|William Munger|Re: When only a steel boat will do!|Dude! My heart sank when I saw that Blue sailboat (Live a board) sink and the owner sitting on a piece of wreckage with his head in his hands! Could he have not headed out to sea before things got extreme? Or was it too sudden? William On 1/20/11 4:16 AM, Kim wrote: > > > Hello all ... > > Last week Brisbane got well and truly flooded! (http://x.co/LrX9) Over > the last month regional Queensland had been experiencing major > flooding. Last week much of it flowed into the Brisbane River, and the > river level rose 4.5 meters above normal. A flood of about this > severity last happened in Brisbane in 1974. Since then various dams > have been built which were supposed to prevent the city flooding; but > there was just too much water. During a big flood in 1893 the water > levels were 8.5 meters. It will happen again. > > It's fascinating to watch the extremely powerful force of the water in > a big river in full flood. Numerous boats live in the river, and very > large numbers of them were severely damaged, either by being hit by > other floating objects or breaking their moorings and then smashing > into other things. > > Anyway, assuming you might be interested I've put together and > uploaded to YouTube a small video consisting of clips from local TV > news broadcasts from last week showing footage of some of the boats > losing the battle against the river's onslaught: http://x.co/LrXa > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > __________________________________________________________ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24959|24943|2011-01-20 17:07:17|Paul Wilson|Re: When only a steel boat will do!|I am getting a warning that there is Malware when I click the link. I use Avira anti-virus. Anyone have any idea if this is a false positive? Cheers, Paul On 1/20/2011 10:16 PM, Kim wrote: > > > Hello all ... > > Last week Brisbane got well and truly flooded! (http://x.co/LrX9) Over > the last month regional Queensland had been experiencing major > flooding. Last week much of it flowed into the Brisbane River, and the > river level rose 4.5 meters above normal. A flood of about this > severity last happened in Brisbane in 1974. Since then various dams > have been built which were supposed to prevent the city flooding; but > there was just too much water. During a big flood in 1893 the water > levels were 8.5 meters. It will happen again. > > It's fascinating to watch the extremely powerful force of the water in > a big river in full flood. Numerous boats live in the river, and very > large numbers of them were severely damaged, either by being hit by > other floating objects or breaking their moorings and then smashing > into other things. > > Anyway, assuming you might be interested I've put together and > uploaded to YouTube a small video consisting of clips from local TV > news broadcasts from last week showing footage of some of the boats > losing the battle against the river's onslaught: http://x.co/LrXa > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > __________________________________________________________ > > | 24960|24944|2011-01-20 17:12:16|Paul Wilson|Re: adding twin keels to classic|Any pictures? Paul On 1/21/2011 10:28 AM, brentswain38 wrote: > > Jack Carson did that to one of my 36 footers , made it a 44, and is > happily cruising Mexico at the moment. > Ahh, the wonders of steel! > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 02:16:04PM +0100, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > > > > > I read where someone cut up a steel hull, welded a long extension > maybe > > > 3 m or 10 feet in the middle, and went on their way. > > > I myself would be willing to do the same. > > > > A friend of mine down in the islands did just that. Jean-Loupe is a > > retired Swiss cowboy (yep, you read that right. I didn't know they > > had'em either :) whose approach to life is mostly "grab a welder and a > > big hammer; it'll come out all right in the end." He bought the > > (home-built) boat, dirt-cheap, from a friend of his in Switzerland who > > was about to give up on the project, got a diesel engine out of a > > Mercedes in a junkyard, crammed it into the boat, and went sailing. When > > he was in Mauritius, he decided that the boat wasn't long enough - so he > > grabbed a welder and a big hammer and added 6 or 7 feet. It worked out > > just fine... and I can definitely tell you that Jean-Loupe is _not_ a > > boat designer. :) > > > > Last I saw him and Denise, they were headed for Australia. Hell of a > > guy, and a real sailor. > > > > > > Ben > > -- > > OKOPNIK CONSULTING > > Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business > > Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming > > 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik > > > > | 24961|24943|2011-01-20 17:14:40|Ben Okopnik|Re: When only a steel boat will do!|On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:07:20AM +1300, Paul Wilson wrote: > I am getting a warning that there is Malware when I click the link. I > use Avira anti-virus. Anyone have any idea if this is a false positive? Took me to a video at YouTube. Seems OK. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24962|24943|2011-01-20 18:37:58|Kim|Re: When only a steel boat will do!|Hi Paul ... I suspect your anti-virus is being over-protective. The file I made was in WMV format, and I think YouTube converts it to FLV. The YouTube site itself should be OK. This is the full URL (that the shortened link in my message points to): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2ej-tlJ7wU Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > I am getting a warning that there is Malware when I click the link. I > use Avira anti-virus. Anyone have any idea if this is a false positive? > > Cheers, Paul > > On 1/20/2011 10:16 PM, Kim wrote: > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > Last week Brisbane got well and truly flooded! (http://x.co/LrX9) Over > > the last month regional Queensland had been experiencing major > > flooding. Last week much of it flowed into the Brisbane River, and the > > river level rose 4.5 meters above normal. A flood of about this > > severity last happened in Brisbane in 1974. Since then various dams > > have been built which were supposed to prevent the city flooding; but > > there was just too much water. During a big flood in 1893 the water > > levels were 8.5 meters. It will happen again. > > > > It's fascinating to watch the extremely powerful force of the water in > > a big river in full flood. Numerous boats live in the river, and very > > large numbers of them were severely damaged, either by being hit by > > other floating objects or breaking their moorings and then smashing > > into other things. > > > > Anyway, assuming you might be interested I've put together and > > uploaded to YouTube a small video consisting of clips from local TV > > news broadcasts from last week showing footage of some of the boats > > losing the battle against the river's onslaught: http://x.co/LrXa > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > __________________________________________________________ | 24963|24943|2011-01-20 18:51:31|Kim|Re: When only a steel boat will do!|Hi William ... Yes, there was plenty of warning. In fact, everyone knew the big flood was inevitable a couple of days in advance. Boat owners were warned well in advance to get their vessels out of the river and out into Moreton Bay. But I guess that if they hadn't seen the Brisbane River in full flood before they wouldn't have understood what was coming, and/or maybe they thought they would be OK. It's hard to tell from the video; but the big blue yacht looks like a ferro boat. It sank so quickly much of its bottom must have been ripped out by whatever it hit. Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, William Munger wrote: > > Dude! My heart sank when I saw that Blue sailboat (Live a board) sink > and the owner sitting on a piece of wreckage with his head in his hands! > > Could he have not headed out to sea before things got extreme? Or was > it too sudden? > > William > > On 1/20/11 4:16 AM, Kim wrote: > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > Last week Brisbane got well and truly flooded! (http://x.co/LrX9) Over > > the last month regional Queensland had been experiencing major > > flooding. Last week much of it flowed into the Brisbane River, and the > > river level rose 4.5 meters above normal. A flood of about this > > severity last happened in Brisbane in 1974. Since then various dams > > have been built which were supposed to prevent the city flooding; but > > there was just too much water. During a big flood in 1893 the water > > levels were 8.5 meters. It will happen again. > > > > It's fascinating to watch the extremely powerful force of the water in > > a big river in full flood. Numerous boats live in the river, and very > > large numbers of them were severely damaged, either by being hit by > > other floating objects or breaking their moorings and then smashing > > into other things. > > > > Anyway, assuming you might be interested I've put together and > > uploaded to YouTube a small video consisting of clips from local TV > > news broadcasts from last week showing footage of some of the boats > > losing the battle against the river's onslaught: http://x.co/LrXa > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > __________________________________________________________ | 24964|24943|2011-01-20 19:06:15|Kim|Re: When only a steel boat will do!|Thanks Brent. Yes, fortunately where I live was unaffected by the floods, and, most importantly, my boatbuilding site was unaffected. Some of my family and friends had houses that went under. Huge cleanup operation in progress this week. Brisbane should be almost back to normal by next week. Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Hope you are on high ground. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > Last week Brisbane got well and truly flooded! (http://x.co/LrX9) Over the last month regional Queensland had been experiencing major flooding. Last week much of it flowed into the Brisbane River, and the river level rose 4.5 meters above normal. A flood of about this severity last happened in Brisbane in 1974. Since then various dams have been built which were supposed to prevent the city flooding; but there was just too much water. During a big flood in 1893 the water levels were 8.5 meters. It will happen again. > > > > It's fascinating to watch the extremely powerful force of the water in a big river in full flood. Numerous boats live in the river, and very large numbers of them were severely damaged, either by being hit by other floating objects or breaking their moorings and then smashing into other things. > > > > Anyway, assuming you might be interested I've put together and uploaded to YouTube a small video consisting of clips from local TV news broadcasts from last week showing footage of some of the boats losing the battle against the river's onslaught: http://x.co/LrXa > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > ______________________________________________________________ | 24965|24943|2011-01-20 19:34:23|Paul Wilson|Re: When only a steel boat will do!|Thanks, the direct link works fine. My Avira anti-virus seems quite aggressive compared to other anti-virus programs I have used in the past. Cheers, Paul On 1/21/2011 12:37 PM, Kim wrote: > > > Hi Paul ... > > I suspect your anti-virus is being over-protective. > > The file I made was in WMV format, and I think YouTube converts it to > FLV. The YouTube site itself should be OK. > > This is the full URL (that the shortened link in my message points > to): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2ej-tlJ7wU > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > I am getting a warning that there is Malware when I click the link. I > > use Avira anti-virus. Anyone have any idea if this is a false positive? > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > On 1/20/2011 10:16 PM, Kim wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > > > Last week Brisbane got well and truly flooded! (http://x.co/LrX9) > Over > > > the last month regional Queensland had been experiencing major > > > flooding. Last week much of it flowed into the Brisbane River, and > the > > > river level rose 4.5 meters above normal. A flood of about this > > > severity last happened in Brisbane in 1974. Since then various dams > > > have been built which were supposed to prevent the city flooding; but > > > there was just too much water. During a big flood in 1893 the water > > > levels were 8.5 meters. It will happen again. > > > > > > It's fascinating to watch the extremely powerful force of the > water in > > > a big river in full flood. Numerous boats live in the river, and very > > > large numbers of them were severely damaged, either by being hit by > > > other floating objects or breaking their moorings and then smashing > > > into other things. > > > > > > Anyway, assuming you might be interested I've put together and > > > uploaded to YouTube a small video consisting of clips from local TV > > > news broadcasts from last week showing footage of some of the boats > > > losing the battle against the river's onslaught: http://x.co/LrXa > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > Kim. > > > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > > __________________________________________________________ > > | 24966|24944|2011-01-20 20:20:02|Mark Hamill|Re: adding twin keels to classic|How about "just" adding sheerlegs as per Brents design in his book. It wouldn't do anything about the draft but would allow you to dry out. I'd like to do that on my boat as per Brents design but will have to discuss with him what with all the interior work that would have to be removed. Maybe an alternate of bolting or tacking to the out side???? MarkH| 24967|24944|2011-01-20 20:24:24|martin demers|Re: adding twin keels to classic|Mark, my goal is to reduce draft and be able to get to some places where I couldn't go otherwise, starting with the marina where my boat presently sits on the hard, where at some time of the season water is not much than 4ft deep. Martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mhamill1@... > Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:19:57 -0800 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: adding twin keels to classic > > How about "just" adding sheerlegs as per Brents design in his book. It > wouldn't do anything about the draft but would allow you to dry out. I'd > like to do that on my boat as per Brents design but will have to discuss > with him what with all the interior work that would have to be removed. > Maybe an alternate of bolting or tacking to the out side???? MarkH > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24968|24968|2011-01-21 03:37:53|normanbywaite|retro-fitting bilge keels and a skeg|Hello, Long-time lurker Matt here. I'm thinking of buying this boat: http://hobart.gumtree.com.au/c-Boats-Jet-Skis-boats-jet-skis-other-YACHT-28-FT-FIXED-KEEL-STEEL-W0QQAdIdZ243841439 And i can't help but daydream about fitting bilge keels and a skeg. Is this madness? And if not, are there any Aussie steel experts on the forum that could help? Much as i love this forum and love origamiboats, i decided some time ago that i'm not going to build the boat of my dreams. The cost and time available (semi-retirement in 2013 - woo hoo!) and skills needed (i don't know which end of a welder to plug in) and space to build, etc... preclude any build-it-yourself plans. Second-hand boats are so cheap at the moment. Maybe i can buy this boat, sail counter-clockwise around the pacific rim and drop in to BC to have the retro-fitting done by Brent? I can dream. Cheers, Matt Melbourne, Australia| 24969|24849|2011-01-21 09:36:44|Matt Malone|Re: How to lie in a storm|OK, I have not done it, and clearly Brent, and others have so, I would like to know more. I think we have all read if not own the big book on heavy weather sailing and all the tactics described there. (http://www.amazon.com/Heavy-Weather-Sailing-30th-Anniversary/dp/0071353232) It first glance, this looks different from what I have read, and as it no doubt comes from experience, I would like to hear more in general. In particular, I would like to learn more about what is behind your saying that lying stern to waves is significantly different from bow. It seems to me you are assuming either: -- that one is flying some canvas when laying stern to the waves, and not flying some specially rigged canvas when laying bow to the waves or -- the stern and bow of your boat have a substantially different shape. Now, the second might be true of all BS boats, however, I am not so confident that the stern of my boat is different enough from the front. So, can you add more detail, particularly, what problems you encounter laying bow to the waves, or with, what I believe is called a brindle, at some fixed angle but mainly bow-into waves ? It seems for a fine-bow boat the better orientation. Now this may degenerate into a discussion, is it better to heave to or lie a-hull, and we know that one is not solved, however, one's personal experience of what is good with their boat is never wrong, and good as gold to be stashed away and remembered. So please share, Matt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:13:13 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? Bow to the waves is almost impossible with a sloop rig, with any kind of drogue.It will simply lie beam on. Stern to the waves is easy. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > >(some stuff about a boat with an intentionally flooded forward and aft section, laying bow to the waves by a drogue) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24970|24849|2011-01-21 12:27:30|rhko47|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|This sounds somewhat like a whale-back ship. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > So, what key feature would you like to see if you were building origami-boat which POSSIBLE can face hurricane at sea? > > Humm, building a boat just for such a situation.... I think I would first make it much longer and finer at both ends than a current orgami, have two bulkheads, and no electronics or vital gear in the forward or aft compartment. I would then partially flood them before the storm. This would reduce buoyancy moments forward and aft, and increase forward-aft inertia, greatly reducing the chance of pitch-poling I would keep a substantial positive buoyancy in the middle so to be sure not to fully transition to a submarine too easily. I would want the waves to wash over the deck, meters deep, use a snorkle in the mast if necessary. Truly huge waves would wash over more than 10 meters deep. > > To help this, I would have normal decks, maybe with high toe-rails, not round-edged, so that water on top of the boat does not shed off too quickly. If fully submerged, I would want the upward settling speed of the boat, the point where lift/bouyancy is countered by drag, to be very slow, like half the speed that the water surface rises and falls in a swell. So long as the boat can ride on top with the upwelling of water under it, and dry decks, it would. As soon as water covers the deck, it would tend to allow the wave to wash over. > > For low-slope waves (if large, then they are long-period) the boat would pitch a little and ride over them. For steeper walls of water, like a wave close to breaking, the boat would fully bury into them with a fine bow, barely pitching at all, much like a surfer would move through large waves to get out past the break. In the core of a wave, there is less water movement. The entire boat would pitch less. The only purpose of the small amount of flotation left fore and aft is to make sure the boat returns to a generally deck flat orientation after it is submerged. The ride would be much smoother, if one could get used to the view out the port holes going dark green nearly half the time. > > Essentially, a boat designed to be a semi-submarine in truly awful weather. When the weather passes, pump the water from the fore and aft sections, dry out the deck chairs, spools of rope, sealed jugs of stuff, maybe put the cushions back in a cabin or two and go back to cruising, riding much higher out of the water and easily carving waves like a racing schooner of the early 20th century. > > The design would be quite impractical unless one lived in water-world, where there were no berthing fees by the foot. Also, one would have to have the ability to put ballast at a deep draft (possibly a lowering keel) again to assure the small flotation moments and the ballast moment tend to return the boat to a deck-level orientation even when submerged. What was a 36 footer might have to be 60 footer to have something close to the same dry volume when in partially flooded mode. This would all but rule out many of the simple advantages of the Brent designs. > > Oh yes, when partially flooded, the water sloshing around inside the forward and aft sections wastes energy, especially if there is some mesh like chain link, that it has to flow through. It is like having shock absorbers on the boat. > > One would still have to pray not to encounter anything more solid than water out there. > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24971|24968|2011-01-21 15:58:29|Matt Malone|Re: Steel boat in Aus|Hello Matt, Matt here, There is no indication how old that boat is. For that and many other reasons, I have no idea whether it seems pricey or cheap. Also, no indications if there is a cradle or trailer for it. Just keeping that boat on the hard where I am would cost $3,000 / year. In a very inexpensive marina, far from my home, it might cost $3,500 to keep it in and keep it on the hard off-season. That could easily be $6,000 plus in a nicer place closer by. If you live in a rural area, it might cost as little as $500 to get it to your place (maybe much more, price it out), where it can stay for free. Relaunching it, another $500 at least just to get it to the water. So, do not underestimate future costs even without a lot of work. That is an old picture as well. What I can see of the interior is not unexpected. There are no close-up photographs of the expensive stuff, like the motor, electrical wiring (its state can say a lot about maintenance) or the plumbing/head. I would want to find out more, have a look at it if I was the buyer, maybe even bring along a buddy who is knowledgeable, if not a surveyor. That said, I bought a 41' Rhodes, a 53 year old solid fibreglass boat for about the same, and was taking a chance only on it still having a solid hull. I did ask for and get photographs of the nooks and crannies, the ugly stuff, and also had foreknowledge that it had floated successfully and without interruption for decades. All of this indicated it was a good bet for the money. It turned out to be great, with many things I was not banking on were in terrific shape and completely functional. Just last week I reconditioned the 53 year old radio direction finder, and it is working great. Get more information, Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: matt@... Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:37:44 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] retro-fitting bilge keels and a skeg Hello, Long-time lurker Matt here. I'm thinking of buying this boat: http://hobart.gumtree.com.au/c-Boats-Jet-Skis-boats-jet-skis-other-YACHT-28-FT-FIXED-KEEL-STEEL-W0QQAdIdZ243841439 And i can't help but daydream about fitting bilge keels and a skeg. Is this madness? And if not, are there any Aussie steel experts on the forum that could help? Much as i love this forum and love origamiboats, i decided some time ago that i'm not going to build the boat of my dreams. The cost and time available (semi-retirement in 2013 - woo hoo!) and skills needed (i don't know which end of a welder to plug in) and space to build, etc... preclude any build-it-yourself plans. Second-hand boats are so cheap at the moment. Maybe i can buy this boat, sail counter-clockwise around the pacific rim and drop in to BC to have the retro-fitting done by Brent? I can dream. Cheers, Matt Melbourne, Australia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24972|24849|2011-01-21 21:02:55|Ben Okopnik|Re: How to lie in a storm|On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 09:36:43AM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > OK, I have not done it, and clearly Brent, and others have so, I would > like to know more. I think we have all read if not own the big book > on heavy weather sailing and all the tactics described there. > (http://www.amazon.com/Heavy-Weather-Sailing-30th-Anniversary/dp/0071353232) That man, as they say in the South, was crazier than a sack full of squirrels (that's the polite version) and tougher than woodpecker lips. :) I'm grateful for his experiments and the fact that he logged them, but - oh, man. Going sailing in order to get beat up isn't my cuppa tea. > So, can you add more detail, particularly, what problems you encounter > laying bow to the waves, or with, what I believe is called a brindle, > at some fixed angle but mainly bow-into waves ? It seems for a > fine-bow boat the better orientation. In my experience and understanding, once the waves get large/steep enough, trying to lie bow-on to the waves is a direct route to pitchpoling (I may be mistaken, but I don't think that Brent was talking about being dead head-on to the seas.) On the other hand, I don't know of any way that you could set your helm, etc. to do that in the first place: the waves will shove you off in one direction or another if you try. Heaving to leaves the boat lying at some angle between the wind and the waves; that angle is determined by your hull shape, rudder setting, any sail you have up, any sea anchors you may have down, and a bunch of other factors. Having said that, I have to mention that the two boats with which I've had experience in serious heavy weather (up to 50kt average/>60kt peak wind speed, and up to 23' seas) behaved very similarly despite being completely different in hull shape, rig, and almost every other way - except for the common factor of being well-designed ocean-going boats. Both lay relatively easily in that kind of conditions when I ran a bridle with a large block running on it from bow to stern and outside the shrouds, and a medium-sized anchor (not a sea anchor - didn't have one to experiment with) secured to the block on a long cable. As I recall, I got the original idea from Hal Roth, or maybe Larry Pardey, and it made a huge difference in directional stability. Incidentally, I found that lying ahull did not work for me with either boat; the first time was extremely uncomfortable, and the second time, the motion instantly became so violent that I'm surprised to still be here (estimated 45-50° rolling to either side of vertical, uncontrolled and extremely violent direction changes, taking huge amounts of water on deck and in the cockpit with almost every wave, etc.) Fortunately, I was still by the mainmast and could spare a hand (*LOVE* the sissy bars around the base of it!) to get the trysail back up, emergency-quick. Once I got the spitfire up, it was almost comfortable. It may be that lying ahull would work at higher wind speeds, but I won't be experimenting with it any further unless I find conditions in which heaving to with a bridle stops working. I kinda hope that I don't, though. :) "Almost comfortable", in this case, means lying about 40° off the wave direction with the wheel lashed amidships. At that point, the boat forereaches more or less automatically, with a somewhat pronounced corkscrewing motion - less so on Ulysses (hard-chine steel ketch, full keel), more so on Recessional (OSTAR racing sloop rig, fin keel with a Sheel "torpedo".) Trying to run off with the seas on the quarter was also fairly reasonable; the corksrewing was more pronounced, and you couldn't just lash the helm anymore because the boat was always trying to jibe (had to steer by hand; the autopilot couldn't handle it.) That let me get her on a course perpendicular to the storm track and eventually away from it. Here, the differences were somewhat more pronounced: Ulysses had a heavier, somewhat less-controllable motion, with noticeable "checks" in it as it tried to rise out of troughs; Recessional tracked quite well and smoothly, with no perceptible checking. Interesting, given the standard presumed difference between full and fin keels... Some other general storm notes rattling around my brain, just for reference: 1) Tacking is almost impossible - either the waves knock you off as soon as you're depowered in troughs, or you're burying the bow as you slide down off the crests. Seriously dangerous, either one (although may not be so on other designs; not sure.) Jibing after heaving the mainsheet in *tight* works well, though. 2) Turning through having the wind beam-on is best done a) in a trough (but beware of tripping) and b) *quickly*. Being caught by a gust at that point can really rattle your teeth. 3) Never, ever, ever, EVER go on deck without a harness with two tethers - and make sure the tethers are long enough to let you get anywhere you need to on the foredeck (N.B.: test this before you need it.) Don't ever trust a non-locking carabiner. Carry a securely-attached _sharp_ serrated knife (*not* in your pocket!), preferably one with a marlinspike. 4) Crawl, dammit. Don't try to imitate the movies and be all brave and macho; you can get ripped off that deck by a wave in a wink unless you're flat as a pancake when it hits. It's 3 *tons* per square foot impact force; spread out, think sticky thoughts, and expose the minimum perpendicular surface you can. 5) Stuff on deck is going to come loose unless you lash it to a degree that seems ridiculous to someone who's never been through a storm at sea (the Trucker's Hitch and the Alpine Butterfly need to be engraved on the inside of your forehead.) In my first one, I had to deal with diesel and salt water covering the deck - yep, that deck you have to crawl on. "Greased ice" would be a fair comparison. In the next-to-the-last one, I had a 20-lb. propane bottle flying at the end of its tether - yep, its *hose* - and spewing propane in every direction. These days, I "truck down" all my deck jugs and never overfill the spare diesel jugs (that's what made the vents pop that time.) 6) When at sea, I do a "deck check" every morning: a slow amble around the deck, taking a good look at everything, especially any connections and joints. During passages, stuff magically deteriorates overnight. I *know* this. Several times, I've found things that would have created an emergency in bad weather if I hadn't fixed them but quick. I strongly recommend that particular religious ritual method of good seamanship to anyone going to sea. HINT: small hardware rolling around on the deck does not fall out of the sky. I'd better stop before this turns into a book, but - you get the general idea. Storms will test all the stuff on your boat, and fail you on anything you thought you could get away with, or anything you didn't think you needed to know. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24973|24849|2011-01-21 23:02:21|wild_explorer|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|All this information made me think hard again ;) After some evaluation of information about containers, big and fast boats, I have some idea which could sound crazy at first look... Why not to build the boat around 40 ft ocean shipping container? Personally, I would prefer 2 x 20 ft instead. Just think about it.... What is the main advantage of origami design? No regular transverse frames.... We can use "back bone frame" instead. Such design will be "work boat" - not the yacht. Container has very strong frame. Hull plates could be secured to that "internal backbone". It will have longitudinal frames and limited transverse frames. No need for keel - hull itself will act as big keel. It will have 2-3 masts. Preliminary specs: LWL - 65-70 ft Displacement 65-70 tonnes Cruising Speed - 10-11 knot Top Speed - 20 knot Power Engine/Sails - 100 kW cruising, 400-500 kW for top speed. It should be easier to build such boat than regular boat. And may be easier than regular origami - it uses straight plates only. It will have at least one watertight compartment(container) plus stern/bow buckle-head. 2 engines could be used instead of one. What group think about it? Comments, pros, cons??? I will try to make 3D sketch tomorrow. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > So, what key feature would you like to see if you were building > > origami-boat which POSSIBLE can face hurricane at sea? > > I think that Matt's design would be quite seaworthy; however, given > sufficient warning, I'd just take a plane. :) If I was restricted to > using a boat to survive it, I'd want that 100-footer - and I'd want it > to be as fast as possible. A friend of mine in the islands had a > multihull that he used every summer, for a number of years, to run away > from hurricanes: when one was within 300 miles or so, he'd whip his > sails up and be in Venezuela in a day. | 24974|24968|2011-01-22 04:03:20|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Steel boat in Aus|This is a GREAT post. re costs and things to look out for. > Hello Matt, Matt here, > > There is no indication how old that boat is. For that and many other reasons, I have no idea whether it seems pricey or cheap. Also, no indications if there is a cradle or trailer for it. Just keeping that boat on the hard where I am would cost $3,000 / year. In a very inexpensive marina, far from my home, it might cost $3,500 to keep it in and keep it on the hard off-season. That could easily be $6,000 plus in a nicer place closer by. If you live in a rural area, it might cost as little as $500 to get it to your place (maybe much more, price it out), where it can stay for free. Relaunching it, another $500 at least just to get it to the water. So, do not underestimate future costs even without a lot of work. > > That is an old picture as well. What I can see of the interior is not unexpected. There are no close-up photographs of the expensive stuff, like the motor, electrical wiring (its state can say a lot about maintenance) or the plumbing/head. I would want to find out more, have a look at it if I was the buyer, maybe even bring along a buddy who is knowledgeable, if not a surveyor. > > That said, I bought a 41' Rhodes, a 53 year old solid fibreglass boat for about the same, and was taking a chance only on it still having a solid hull. I did ask for and get photographs of the nooks and crannies, the ugly stuff, and also had foreknowledge that it had floated successfully and without interruption for decades. All of this indicated it was a good bet for the money. It turned out to be great, with many things I was not banking on were in terrific shape and completely functional. Just last week I reconditioned the 53 year old radio direction finder, and it is working great. > > Get more information, > > Matt > > | 24975|24849|2011-01-22 04:26:09|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|No, no, NO. And again, very very politely and quietly, no. A shipping container will absolutely not work as a boat, and it is very, very weak in torsion. It would break apart quickly. The wracking stresses (twist) on boats are hundreds of tons. Boats resist this precisely because of the shape and material they are. Boats bend, quite a lot, and are built in a way that it does not matter. Boats do not (mostly) resist the force, they are supported by the water, and it either flows past them, or around them. Containers are very strong vertically, only. They are extremely light for their size. Shipping containers, with living rooms inside, are a common way to load warships, and very quickly re-launch them with everythign re-provisioned. They just lift out the old one, and lift in the new one with a crane. The Finnish navy does this. (Merivoimat). A buddy served on one (I was in the Air Force technical and worked on Mig21s). Thats how they can re-configure and re-launch a boat in one day, with 30 crew. A big (70 ft) boat in steel is easy to build. Make a (big) cnc plasma cutter. Takes about 2 months, and 8k in bits (12k for a 6x6 m). I can make one if you want (grin ;). Cut the plates. One day. Weld it up. 2 months. Now you have done 15%-20%. Congrats. Now the spending money starts seriously. Consider that paint is several thousands. You need several crew or pro equipment. So is insulation, in the 15-20k range.You need several crew or pro equipment. And we are back to building time ... smile. > All this information made me think hard again ;) After some evaluation > of information about containers, big and fast boats, I have some idea > which could sound crazy at first look... > > Why not to build the boat around 40 ft ocean shipping container? > Personally, I would prefer 2 x 20 ft instead. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24976|24849|2011-01-22 13:05:28|wild_explorer|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Clarification: I meant to build a boat AROUND shipping container, NOT FROM it. But I do appreciate the comment. Purpose of a container - watertight compartment inside the boat and extra hull's reinforcement. It might require extra frame for the container (if want to load/unload a container). Boat will be single chin double-ender. Kind of container-carrier, but container is inside. The beauty of Brent's design, hull could be folded by one person. Regular origami is OK up to 40 ft (as DIY). Bigger boat may need slightly different approach. I am re-thinking "boat around container" concept. If made from separate peaces of plates, such plates would be heavy to move around and lift anyway + extra welding. It is possible to make hull-half from 2 strips, but will require lifting equipment. P.S. Just exploring possibilities ;) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > > A shipping container will absolutely not work as a boat, and it is > very, very weak in torsion. > It would break apart quickly. > The wracking stresses (twist) on boats are hundreds of tons. Boats > resist this precisely because of the shape and material they are. > Boats bend, quite a lot, and are built in a way that it does not matter. > Boats do not (mostly) resist the force, they are supported by the water, > and it either flows past them, or around them. > > Containers are very strong vertically, only. They are extremely light > for their size. | 24977|24849|2011-01-22 13:07:13|Ben Okopnik|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 04:02:11AM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > Such design will be "work boat" - not the yacht. Container has very strong frame. Rather thin as compared to a boat of the same size, aren't they? > Hull plates could be secured to that "internal backbone". If I'm visualizing what you're saying the right way, that sounds like a _lot_ of wasted space. > No need for keel - hull itself will act as big keel. Only if you don't mind rolling like a tumbleweed and being unable to sail. You need lateral resistance of some kind, and I doubt that the hull itself would provide the required amount. > Preliminary specs: > > LWL - 65-70 ft > Displacement 65-70 tonnes > Cruising Speed - 10-11 knot > Top Speed - 20 knot [blink] Planing hull, is it? Not with all that weight, I don't think. > Power Engine/Sails - 100 kW cruising, 400-500 kW for top speed. Something like 130-650HP, right? It would take a lot of fuel to drive that big thing, and much of it would be wasted. I don't think you're talking anything in the range that most people here can afford. If we were all up for building powerboats, well, Phil Bolger came up with some extremely well thought-out, seaworthy, and economical designs (as I understand it, that was his main focus for a number of years before his death.) It's possible to get a solid hunk of rock to whizz across the water - given enough power, you could send a steel plate out of the Solar System, or at least out into space (do a search for "first manmade object in space", or "operation plumbbob" if you need more clues.) The point of _sailboats_ is that they use freely-available power in a relatively efficient manner - which dovetails with the way that many of us are trying to live (minimal expenditure, maximum return.) They're also excellent systems for surviving in what can sometimes be a very hostile environment. The kind of thing you're describing certainly fails the first category, and sounds like it would fail the second one as well. Sorry if that's disappointing. :) But I do have to say that I appreciate your ideas; without someone proposing nominally "crazy" stuff, we would still be living in caves. Hell, Brent's ideas are "crazy" from some people's perspective. I just happen to disagree with those people. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24978|24849|2011-01-22 13:52:42|wild_explorer|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|I will try to answer step-by-step (see below) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > Hull plates could be secured to that "internal backbone". > > If I'm visualizing what you're saying the right way, that sounds like a > _lot_ of wasted space. Not really. "Wasted space" could be used for tankage, engine room, water ballast, etc. But you will have TRUE living space of 40 ft container. > > No need for keel - hull itself will act as big keel. > > Only if you don't mind rolling like a tumbleweed and being unable to > sail. You need lateral resistance of some kind, and I doubt that the > hull itself would provide the required amount. It will roll LESS than regular sailboat and have better stability (bigger boat). Hull should provide enough lateral resistance. Where did you see tall ships with sailboat keel? Long longitudinal keels/stabilizers/dumpers could be made on the hull (similar to ones used on weather-ships) to lower rolling as well. > > > Preliminary specs: > > > > LWL - 65-70 ft > > Displacement 65-70 tonnes > > Cruising Speed - 10-11 knot > > Top Speed - 20 knot > > [blink] Planing hull, is it? Not with all that weight, I don't think. > > > Power Engine/Sails - 100 kW cruising, 400-500 kW for top speed. > > Something like 130-650HP, right? It would take a lot of fuel to drive > that big thing, and much of it would be wasted. I don't think you're > talking anything in the range that most people here can afford. If e Moving such big boat with speed of 6 kn will require about 10-15kW of power. It just looks like a lot of power because I took power numbers for MAXIMUM resistance of the hull (when it goes from displacement to semi-planning speed). Just compare it with 40 ft sailboat (displacement about 15-20 tonnes) Power required to move such boat: 7-8 kn - 35-40 kW (max displacement hull speed) 14 kn - about 80-100 kW (semi-displacement speed) It sails just fine under the sails. Nobody ask to sail the boat above "displacement hull speed" as well. Only in extreme cases ;) | 24979|24849|2011-01-22 14:33:13|Paul Wilson|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|How about building a boat around bubble wrap? Think about it. You have floatation built in as well as comfy furniture. No need to built the interior. You could just pop the bubbles where required to make seats and berths. The only down side I see is if you have pets. You will need to have special (kevlar?) mittens for your cats to prevent damage from their claws. Just thinking of the possibilities..... Paul On 1/23/2011 7:52 AM, wild_explorer wrote: > > I will try to answer step-by-step (see below) > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > Hull plates could be secured to that "internal backbone". > > > > If I'm visualizing what you're saying the right way, that sounds like a > > _lot_ of wasted space. > > Not really. "Wasted space" could be used for tankage, engine room, > water ballast, etc. But you will have TRUE living space of 40 ft > container. > > > > No need for keel - hull itself will act as big keel. > > > > Only if you don't mind rolling like a tumbleweed and being unable to > > sail. You need lateral resistance of some kind, and I doubt that the > > hull itself would provide the required amount. > > It will roll LESS than regular sailboat and have better stability > (bigger boat). Hull should provide enough lateral resistance. Where > did you see tall ships with sailboat keel? Long longitudinal > keels/stabilizers/dumpers could be made on the hull (similar to ones > used on weather-ships) to lower rolling as well. > > > > > > Preliminary specs: > > > > > > LWL - 65-70 ft > > > Displacement 65-70 tonnes > > > Cruising Speed - 10-11 knot > > > Top Speed - 20 knot > > > > [blink] Planing hull, is it? Not with all that weight, I don't think. > > > > > Power Engine/Sails - 100 kW cruising, 400-500 kW for top speed. > > > > Something like 130-650HP, right? It would take a lot of fuel to drive > > that big thing, and much of it would be wasted. I don't think you're > > talking anything in the range that most people here can afford. If e > > Moving such big boat with speed of 6 kn will require about 10-15kW of > power. > > It just looks like a lot of power because I took power numbers for > MAXIMUM resistance of the hull (when it goes from displacement to > semi-planning speed). > > Just compare it with 40 ft sailboat (displacement about 15-20 tonnes) > > Power required to move such boat: > > 7-8 kn - 35-40 kW (max displacement hull speed) > 14 kn - about 80-100 kW (semi-displacement speed) > > It sails just fine under the sails. > > Nobody ask to sail the boat above "displacement hull speed" as well. > Only in extreme cases ;) > > | 24980|24849|2011-01-22 14:52:11|Ben Okopnik|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 06:52:31PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > I will try to answer step-by-step (see below) > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > If I'm visualizing what you're saying the right way, that sounds like a > > _lot_ of wasted space. > > Not really. "Wasted space" could be used for tankage, engine room, > water ballast, etc. But you will have TRUE living space of 40 ft > container. I can't see how you would seal that space for tankage. You're talking about matching a conic section, or an approximation of one - something that's got a progressive variation in several dimensions - against a flat surface (not so flat, actually; most shipping containers are corrugated for strength.) You're also talking about the "hull" - or whatever you want to call the material between the living space and the outside - consisting of a) a skin, which needs to be thick and strong enough to deal with the ocean, impacts, etc., and b) a "liner" consisting on the container wall, which is a huge amount of non-structural weight. In effect, you're pre-loading the boat with 5000lb (standard tare of 20' container - I just looked it up) of dead weight. That's weight you'll have to pay for in fuel no matter what. Add that to the point that Hannu made earlier about the torsion loads, and it just doesn't make sense. > > > No need for keel - hull itself will act as big keel. > > > > Only if you don't mind rolling like a tumbleweed and being unable to > > sail. You need lateral resistance of some kind, and I doubt that the > > hull itself would provide the required amount. > > It will roll LESS than regular sailboat and have better stability > (bigger boat). Hull should provide enough lateral resistance. Where > did you see tall ships with sailboat keel? Um... what's a "sailboat keel"? If you mean an extreme fin keel, then, no, you're not going to find those on a tall ship. On the other hand, a Colin Archer hull is pretty similar to a number of the tall ship hulls that I'm finding on line - and that full keel is pretty definite. "No need for a keel" is a bit beyond hyperbole; unless you build *a lot* bigger than 70', you need some kind of a keel - unless you want a machine for blending people and their stuff. :) > Long longitudinal > keels/stabilizers/dumpers could be made on the hull (similar to ones > used on weather-ships) to lower rolling as well. Right. My point was that you need _something_ to stabilize it; 70' may be a big boat on the human scale, but it's still a tiny little chip to the ocean. > > > Preliminary specs: > > > > > > LWL - 65-70 ft > > > Displacement 65-70 tonnes > > > Cruising Speed - 10-11 knot > > > Top Speed - 20 knot > > > > [blink] Planing hull, is it? Not with all that weight, I don't think. > > > > > Power Engine/Sails - 100 kW cruising, 400-500 kW for top speed. > > > > Something like 130-650HP, right? It would take a lot of fuel to drive > > that big thing, and much of it would be wasted. I don't think you're > > talking anything in the range that most people here can afford. If e > > Moving such big boat with speed of 6 kn will require about 10-15kW of power. Agreed - 6kt won't take much. I've "hipped" a 48' boat with my 15HP dinghy, and moved it at (estimated) 3-4kt. But for anything beyond sqrt(70) - i.e., ~8.36kt - those power needs start climbing sharply - and to go beyond sqrt(70) * 1.3 (10.88kt), you need to plane. Which you can't, with a boat that heavily loaded. So, cruising speed/top speed would be _under_ 8.36/10.88 - not 10-11/20. Also, for that hull shape, even that 1.3 is pretty optimistic. > Just compare it with 40 ft sailboat (displacement about 15-20 tonnes) > > Power required to move such boat: > > 7-8 kn - 35-40 kW (max displacement hull speed) > 14 kn - about 80-100 kW (semi-displacement speed) > > It sails just fine under the sails. Oh, boy. Anybody here have experience with a 40' sailboat doing 14 knots? I *once* had "Recessional" - which was a 34' OSTAR racing boat - hitting 11 while surfing down waves. Just once, in the 6 or so years that I've owned her, and I'm not shy about keeping sail up in windy weather. I can just about guarantee that 99.9% of 40' sailboats will _never_ see 14kt. I've talked to hundreds of cruisers in my time, and pretty much everybody averages 5-6kt over a long passage. This includes 40+-footers (long-term cruising 50-footers are unusual, and make up only a tiny percentage.) A 7kt average is a reason for serious envy. I'm sure that your design will do that on paper, though. :) > Nobody ask to sail the boat above "displacement hull speed" as well. That's why that 20kt figure looks wrong. But then, I'm not a boat designer; I'm just a guy who sails'em and lives on'em. Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24981|24849|2011-01-22 14:59:44|Ben Okopnik|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 08:33:03AM +1300, Paul Wilson wrote: > How about building a boat around bubble wrap? Think about it. You have > floatation built in as well as comfy furniture. No need to built the > interior. You could just pop the bubbles where required to make seats > and berths. The only down side I see is if you have pets. You will need > to have special (kevlar?) mittens for your cats to prevent damage from > their claws. I love it! It'll resist impact really well, too: whenever you see a freighter about to t-bone you, you just run down below REALLY REALLY fast, grab a bunch of it, and spread it around the point of impact - and it should just bounce off! You just need really big bubbles. (Oh, dear. I must be getting a bit punchy. That's what happens when I'm trying to stuff a new computer language into my brain these days. Back to the books I go.) Ben -- OKOPNIK CONSULTING Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business Expert-led Training | Dynamic, vital websites | Custom programming 443-250-7895 http://okopnik.com http://twitter.com/okopnik| 24982|24849|2011-01-22 15:04:46|wild_explorer|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Paul, you can take a look at image file how my concept looks like in this folder: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/Origami_hulls_and_stability/65ft_boat_concept/ I would like to see your concept ;) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > How about building a boat around bubble wrap? Think about it. You have > floatation built in as well as comfy furniture. No need to built the > interior. You could just pop the bubbles where required to make seats > and berths. The only down side I see is if you have pets. You will need > to have special (kevlar?) mittens for your cats to prevent damage from > their claws. > > Just thinking of the possibilities..... > > Paul | 24983|24849|2011-01-22 15:34:42|wild_explorer|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Ben, I agree with most of the points you made (I like when you talk seriously). About weight. It is very critical for 40 ft steel boat and even more critical for 36 footer. For 65ft LOA it is not. Estimated weight (6mm steel for the hull, 3-4mm deck, container, 20% ballast, etc) will be about 20-30 tonnes. Displacement is about 65 tonnes. So, you still need about 30 tonnes to bring boat to its designed draft (about 4-5 ft). Speed/resistance (and power required) is mainly based on waterline length (LWL) and draft. And yes, I did it on paper - it is a concept. Any ship starts from preliminary design specs, based on data/tests from already built ships... --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: >You're also talking about the "hull" - or > whatever you want to call the material between the living space and the > outside - consisting of a) a skin, which needs to be thick and strong > enough to deal with the ocean, impacts, etc., and b) a "liner" > consisting on the container wall, which is a huge amount of > non-structural weight. In effect, you're pre-loading the boat with > 5000lb (standard tare of 20' container - I just looked it up) of dead > weight. That's weight you'll have to pay for in fuel no matter what. > | 24984|24984|2011-01-22 15:43:35|wild_explorer|Not only sailboat community prefer free mooring on a beach|Just the picture I found interesting http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Xba64hD3sfg/SSejSypeJII/AAAAAAAAAdY/F7qSoUNZKd0/s400/type022_03large.jpg| 24985|24968|2011-01-22 15:49:01|scott|Re: retro-fitting bilge keels and a skeg|damn.. thats a hell of a price.. if nothing major is wrong with it that is less than the steel to build it would cost. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "normanbywaite" wrote: > > Hello, > Long-time lurker Matt here. > > I'm thinking of buying this boat: > http://hobart.gumtree.com.au/c-Boats-Jet-Skis-boats-jet-skis-other-YACHT-28-FT-FIXED-KEEL-STEEL-W0QQAdIdZ243841439 > > And i can't help but daydream about fitting bilge keels and a skeg. > Is this madness? And if not, are there any Aussie steel experts on the forum that could help? > > Much as i love this forum and love origamiboats, i decided some time ago that i'm not going to build the boat of my dreams. The cost and time available (semi-retirement in 2013 - woo hoo!) and skills needed (i don't know which end of a welder to plug in) and space to build, etc... preclude any build-it-yourself plans. > Second-hand boats are so cheap at the moment. > > Maybe i can buy this boat, sail counter-clockwise around the pacific rim and drop in to BC to have the retro-fitting done by Brent? > I can dream. > Cheers, > Matt > Melbourne, Australia > | 24986|24968|2011-01-22 18:35:42|brentswain38|Re: retro-fitting bilge keels and a skeg|You could put twin keels on that boat. You would have to strip out the interior, paint in the working area, and insulation , then put 4- 3X3X1/2 inch angles from centreline to chine ,or chine to tank top, to adequately support them. Moving the rudder slightly aft and putting it on a skeg would also be a good idea. I'd be happy to do it when you get here. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "normanbywaite" wrote: > > Hello, > Long-time lurker Matt here. > > I'm thinking of buying this boat: > http://hobart.gumtree.com.au/c-Boats-Jet-Skis-boats-jet-skis-other-YACHT-28-FT-FIXED-KEEL-STEEL-W0QQAdIdZ243841439 > > And i can't help but daydream about fitting bilge keels and a skeg. > Is this madness? And if not, are there any Aussie steel experts on the forum that could help? > > Much as i love this forum and love origamiboats, i decided some time ago that i'm not going to build the boat of my dreams. The cost and time available (semi-retirement in 2013 - woo hoo!) and skills needed (i don't know which end of a welder to plug in) and space to build, etc... preclude any build-it-yourself plans. > Second-hand boats are so cheap at the moment. > > Maybe i can buy this boat, sail counter-clockwise around the pacific rim and drop in to BC to have the retro-fitting done by Brent? > I can dream. > Cheers, > Matt > Melbourne, Australia > | 24987|24849|2011-01-22 18:44:25|brentswain38|Re: How to lie in a storm|Just try anchoring any sloop or cutter rigged boat from the bow in a 15 knot breeze, zero sail up. . You will find it tacks around the anchor , often coming beam on to the wind, in short keeled boats, drastically increasing the loads and chafe on the anchor gear, especially when she gains speed, then is stopped short by the anchor rode. . Now try it stern to the wind with the anchor off one stern quarter. You will find she lays like a dead duck in the water ,zero sheering around, and a tiny fraction the load on the anchor rode. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > OK, I have not done it, and clearly Brent, and others have so, I would like to know more. I think we have all read if not own the big book on heavy weather sailing and all the tactics described there. (http://www.amazon.com/Heavy-Weather-Sailing-30th-Anniversary/dp/0071353232) It first glance, this looks different from what I have read, and as it no doubt comes from experience, I would like to hear more in general. > > In particular, I would like to learn more about what is behind your saying that lying stern to waves is significantly different from bow. It seems to me you are assuming either: > > -- that one is flying some canvas when laying stern to the waves, and not flying some specially rigged canvas when laying bow to the waves or > -- the stern and bow of your boat have a substantially different shape. > > Now, the second might be true of all BS boats, however, I am not so confident that the stern of my boat is different enough from the front. > > So, can you add more detail, particularly, what problems you encounter laying bow to the waves, or with, what I believe is called a brindle, at some fixed angle but mainly bow-into waves ? It seems for a fine-bow boat the better orientation. > > Now this may degenerate into a discussion, is it better to heave to or lie a-hull, and we know that one is not solved, however, one's personal experience of what is good with their boat is never wrong, and good as gold to be stashed away and remembered. > > So please share, > > Matt > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:13:13 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bow to the waves is almost impossible with a sloop rig, with any kind of drogue.It will simply lie beam on. Stern to the waves is easy. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > >(some stuff about a boat with an intentionally flooded forward and aft section, laying bow to the waves by a drogue) > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 24988|24968|2011-01-22 18:50:11|brentswain38|Re: Steel boat in Aus|Farmers will sometimes rent you a space, for a fraction the cost of a boatyard. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > This is a GREAT post. re costs and things to look out for. > > > Hello Matt, Matt here, > > > > There is no indication how old that boat is. For that and many other reasons, I have no idea whether it seems pricey or cheap. Also, no indications if there is a cradle or trailer for it. Just keeping that boat on the hard where I am would cost $3,000 / year. In a very inexpensive marina, far from my home, it might cost $3,500 to keep it in and keep it on the hard off-season. That could easily be $6,000 plus in a nicer place closer by. If you live in a rural area, it might cost as little as $500 to get it to your place (maybe much more, price it out), where it can stay for free. Relaunching it, another $500 at least just to get it to the water. So, do not underestimate future costs even without a lot of work. > > > > That is an old picture as well. What I can see of the interior is not unexpected. There are no close-up photographs of the expensive stuff, like the motor, electrical wiring (its state can say a lot about maintenance) or the plumbing/head. I would want to find out more, have a look at it if I was the buyer, maybe even bring along a buddy who is knowledgeable, if not a surveyor. > > > > That said, I bought a 41' Rhodes, a 53 year old solid fibreglass boat for about the same, and was taking a chance only on it still having a solid hull. I did ask for and get photographs of the nooks and crannies, the ugly stuff, and also had foreknowledge that it had floated successfully and without interruption for decades. All of this indicated it was a good bet for the money. It turned out to be great, with many things I was not banking on were in terrific shape and completely functional. Just last week I reconditioned the 53 year old radio direction finder, and it is working great. > > > > Get more information, > > > > Matt > > > > > | 24989|24849|2011-01-22 18:54:38|brentswain38|Re: How to lie in a storm|Moored by the stern quarter, the boat lies a few degrees off directly downwind , allowing wind pressure on the rig to take the roll out of her. I find that very comfortable, especially with ear plugs in. I like to run a piece of chain thru the chock, eliminating the possibility of chafe there, and attach the rode to that, well clear of the hull. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Just try anchoring any sloop or cutter rigged boat from the bow in a 15 knot breeze, zero sail up. . You will find it tacks around the anchor , often coming beam on to the wind, in short keeled boats, drastically increasing the loads and chafe on the anchor gear, especially when she gains speed, then is stopped short by the anchor rode. . Now try it stern to the wind with the anchor off one stern quarter. You will find she lays like a dead duck in the water ,zero sheering around, and a tiny fraction the load on the anchor rode. . > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > OK, I have not done it, and clearly Brent, and others have so, I would like to know more. I think we have all read if not own the big book on heavy weather sailing and all the tactics described there. (http://www.amazon.com/Heavy-Weather-Sailing-30th-Anniversary/dp/0071353232) It first glance, this looks different from what I have read, and as it no doubt comes from experience, I would like to hear more in general. > > > > In particular, I would like to learn more about what is behind your saying that lying stern to waves is significantly different from bow. It seems to me you are assuming either: > > > > -- that one is flying some canvas when laying stern to the waves, and not flying some specially rigged canvas when laying bow to the waves or > > -- the stern and bow of your boat have a substantially different shape. > > > > Now, the second might be true of all BS boats, however, I am not so confident that the stern of my boat is different enough from the front. > > > > So, can you add more detail, particularly, what problems you encounter laying bow to the waves, or with, what I believe is called a brindle, at some fixed angle but mainly bow-into waves ? It seems for a fine-bow boat the better orientation. > > > > Now this may degenerate into a discussion, is it better to heave to or lie a-hull, and we know that one is not solved, however, one's personal experience of what is good with their boat is never wrong, and good as gold to be stashed away and remembered. > > > > So please share, > > > > Matt > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:13:13 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bow to the waves is almost impossible with a sloop rig, with any kind of drogue.It will simply lie beam on. Stern to the waves is easy. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > >(some stuff about a boat with an intentionally flooded forward and aft section, laying bow to the waves by a drogue) > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 24990|24968|2011-01-22 18:56:08|brentswain38|Re: retro-fitting bilge keels and a skeg|Check out low , inaccessible parts with a hammer and a centre punch for thin spots. Check out the thickness of inside paint, under the insulation. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > > damn.. thats a hell of a price.. if nothing major is wrong with it that is less than the steel to build it would cost. > scott > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "normanbywaite" wrote: > > > > Hello, > > Long-time lurker Matt here. > > > > I'm thinking of buying this boat: > > http://hobart.gumtree.com.au/c-Boats-Jet-Skis-boats-jet-skis-other-YACHT-28-FT-FIXED-KEEL-STEEL-W0QQAdIdZ243841439 > > > > And i can't help but daydream about fitting bilge keels and a skeg. > > Is this madness? And if not, are there any Aussie steel experts on the forum that could help? > > > > Much as i love this forum and love origamiboats, i decided some time ago that i'm not going to build the boat of my dreams. The cost and time available (semi-retirement in 2013 - woo hoo!) and skills needed (i don't know which end of a welder to plug in) and space to build, etc... preclude any build-it-yourself plans. > > Second-hand boats are so cheap at the moment. > > > > Maybe i can buy this boat, sail counter-clockwise around the pacific rim and drop in to BC to have the retro-fitting done by Brent? > > I can dream. > > Cheers, > > Matt > > Melbourne, Australia > > > | 24991|24849|2011-01-22 19:46:00|James Pronk|Re: How to lie in a storm|I should anchor my boat this way all the time. No need to send anyone forward. Just point up into the wind, hopefully you stop or slow down were you want your anchor. Throw it out and let the wind blow you back. No damn good if you throw the engine in reverse to reset your anchor. You would want all your rode out of the water before you do that. James --- On Sat, 1/22/11, brentswain38 wrote: From: brentswain38 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: How to lie in a storm To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Saturday, January 22, 2011, 6:41 PM   Just try anchoring any sloop or cutter rigged boat from the bow in a 15 knot breeze, zero sail up. . You will find it tacks around the anchor , often coming beam on to the wind, in short keeled boats, drastically increasing the loads and chafe on the anchor gear, especially when she gains speed, then is stopped short by the anchor rode. . Now try it stern to the wind with the anchor off one stern quarter. You will find she lays like a dead duck in the water ,zero sheering around, and a tiny fraction the load on the anchor rode. . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bow to the waves is almost impossible with a sloop rig, with any kind of drogue.It will simply lie beam on. Stern to the waves is easy. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > >(some stuff about a boat with an intentionally flooded forward and aft section, laying bow to the waves by a drogue) > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24992|24968|2011-01-23 00:09:54|normanbywaite|Re: retro-fitting bilge keels and a skeg|Thanks Brent and everyone, So if i look into the nooks and go tapping away with a hammer and centrepunch, what am i looking for? A change in the sound the punch makes? To find thin areas? Or am i looking for rust under the paint and insulation? I know that on my car the rust under the paint makes a bubble that can be seen easily. Mention was made earlier of hull thickness. My interest in metal boats is because of the strength, but i guess if the metal is too thin and easily pierced then the advantage is lost? Forgive my metal-working ignorance, but can a metal hull that's a bit on the thin side be beefed up in some way later? I really appreciate the advice fellas. I've been on a few forums over the years and even though i'm very unlikely to be building an origami boat, i find the depth of knowledge and experience on this forum to be unparalelled. So i hope you'll indulge me asking slightly non-origami type questions. Cheers, Matt Melbourne, Australia| 24993|24993|2011-01-23 00:39:06|normanbywaite|sell up and sail - fact or fiction|Why do people's "sell-up and sail away" plans go awry? I'm feeling a bit talkative today so if you don't mind I was hoping to open up a discussion about this. I know there are other forums for this, but this one is my favourite. So the goal I formulated about ten years ago is more or less running to plan – that is sell the business and the real estate in 2013 (when the teenager is out of my hair) and float away into voyaging bliss. I should have about $200k (Aus) to play with and a bit of income from some work I can do along the way (some accounting work with laptop and internet connection about two days per month). So the dilemma is whether or not to buy a fixer-upper boat now and over the next two years tinker and potter away getting ready, or wait until the actual day and buy something ready-made for the semi-retired cruising life. The dilemma is partly psychological. I have spoken to a few people, and read accounts in books and the internet, and it seems to me that although this goal is shared by many there are very few people doing it. The Pardeys put this down to people buying more boat than they can afford to maintain, and there are plenty of examples in boat yards of people's incomplete dreams. But for me I'd rather buy the fixer-upper now, even taking into account storage costs and yard fees. Because I want to make progress towards the goal. Chunks of money in savings accounts seem to have a habit of depleting all by themselves (especially for a single parent with a teenager) and I reckon I'm more likely to really sail away if the costs are borne gradually along the way, rather than saved-up for as a lump sum. I'm one of those people for whom self-deception works – I have to shovel money away into a hiding place that I later almost forget in order to keep it out of harm's way. Anyhow, the discussion I was hoping to open up is really this: Why do so many people who make this "sell-up-and-sail-away" goal fail? Cheers, Matt| 24994|24993|2011-01-23 01:40:01|Aaron Williams|Re: sell up and sail - fact or fiction|Matt Most people do not realize the time and effort it takes to rebuild or to  build a boat to completion until its to late and they are ether broke sick or burned out from not getting it done in the time they thought it would take. Because: Life gets in the way! Aaron ________________________________ From: normanbywaite To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, January 22, 2011 8:38:58 PM Subject: [origamiboats] sell up and sail - fact or fiction   Why do people's "sell-up and sail away" plans go awry? I'm feeling a bit talkative today so if you don't mind I was hoping to open up a discussion about this. I know there are other forums for this, but this one is my favourite. So the goal I formulated about ten years ago is more or less running to plan – that is sell the business and the real estate in 2013 (when the teenager is out of my hair) and float away into voyaging bliss. I should have about $200k (Aus) to play with and a bit of income from some work I can do along the way (some accounting work with laptop and internet connection about two days per month). So the dilemma is whether or not to buy a fixer-upper boat now and over the next two years tinker and potter away getting ready, or wait until the actual day and buy something ready-made for the semi-retired cruising life. The dilemma is partly psychological. I have spoken to a few people, and read accounts in books and the internet, and it seems to me that although this goal is shared by many there are very few people doing it. The Pardeys put this down to people buying more boat than they can afford to maintain, and there are plenty of examples in boat yards of people's incomplete dreams. But for me I'd rather buy the fixer-upper now, even taking into account storage costs and yard fees. Because I want to make progress towards the goal. Chunks of money in savings accounts seem to have a habit of depleting all by themselves (especially for a single parent with a teenager) and I reckon I'm more likely to really sail away if the costs are borne gradually along the way, rather than saved-up for as a lump sum. I'm one of those people for whom self-deception works – I have to shovel money away into a hiding place that I later almost forget in order to keep it out of harm's way. Anyhow, the discussion I was hoping to open up is really this: Why do so many people who make this "sell-up-and-sail-away" goal fail? Cheers, Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24995|24849|2011-01-23 03:34:42|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Sail speed story|In Spain (all europe, really ,these days) to rent a boat (or even sail, sometimes the cost guard checks) you need to have a "boat card". So, I went to the crouch Sailing School in the UK a few years back, maybe 2006 or so. Got my RYA title and have since rented about 12 boats in the 32-42 ft size and had a lot of fun. Mooring are insanely expensive here, it is far cheaper to rent at need. About 250€-280€/day for a 11-12 m. The story is that we did our exam day with a force 9, gusting 10, weather (and no we did NOT go out into the wide open ocean in that weather). All good fun, and as the previous day was nearly as strong, we got to practice in strong winds. We put up the spinnaker, and on an incoming tide, with the wind behind us, and full sail, we did 10.3 knots on the schools 33 ft South African built (heavy-thick fiberglass laminate) cruiser. I helmed. My instructor said they had once seen 10.5 knots on the GPS, and this was the second-closest record. It was great fun, and I never felt scared. On the contrary, I could not have been happier. Very big smile. Of course, practising, for hours on end, for several days with a pro skipper, doing drills for several hours every day, and in constantly increasing weather, pretty much cured me about any weather apprehension. Near Barcelona where I mostly sail, it is common to get heavy wind in the afternoons. The wind rises until it overpowers the boat, and all the ports on one side are under the water, upto the railings. It´s just par for the course, and most experienced people arent too fussed. For a newcomer, it can be terrifying. Of course, with these little boats and just a genoa + main, we never get more than about 7 knots. Moral of the story: Once you learn, it´s not hard. Learn by doing and asking questions, from someone better than you at it. I took a 24 m V-bull to Malta for the owner, about 2003. A Baia Azzurra, 2x1300 Hp, a deep V-offshore high end sportboat. we got caught in wether, coming to Tunisia, on a Force 7, with maybe 2-3 m waves against us. 100 miles to go, and no choice but to keep planing. A light (24 tons) fast planing boat needs to be driven in when the weather changes. At only 20 knots (lowest sensible speed) the waves came longitudinally over the hardtop, on a 24 m hull ! Almost lost the dinghy off the back, had to retie it in the weather while floating, but stilll was great good fun. Had we lost propulsion for some reason, the situation would have been serious. Opposite end: Last leg to PMI (Palma de Mallorca) we started from sicily at 5 am, and came at 60 knots all the way, dead calm, arriving about 10 or so, with only 150 l gas left (in 3000 l tanks). Total blast, and confirmed in me why I want a trawler. I enjoy the trips, and on light planing plastic boats mostly the ports are enjoyable. High speed is only fun for 1/2 hour. The noise is no fun after that.| 24996|24993|2011-01-23 04:07:24|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: sell up and sail - fact or fiction|Aaron has it. It is not THAT hard, or THAT much work. Brent has built something like 30 hulls. But, building a boat needs manual skills, dexterity and tools, and know-how. All can be aquired, but today the vast majority of people do not have the 3 ingredients. Any well-equipped carpenter or contrator can do it, easily, if someone who knows boats gives them some guidance. Anyone can become a carpenter, painter, welder, electrician. All are somewhat skilled occupations, where a really good guy with the tools will be a much better job in 1/4 the time a beginner will. However, it takes a lot of grit to aquire all these skills, while working in small, unfomfortable positions, usually working with pretty inadequate tools, poor lighting and while making mistakes. This will build you a hull. Congrats. You have done 1/3. After that, starts the systems. And spending money. The systems can cost literally anything, from a cedar bucket to 15.000$ for a trolling valve installed to regulate the main engine. For someone starting out, the Q to ask is will you really like it ? The building, the sailing, the cruising. I know I will, and so will my partner. After that, everything is doable. If the question is about the fixer-upper, now, for 2 years, I would not try it this way. What is the probabaility of something happening within 2 years to dent your cruising plans ? How big a boat do you want ? This is crucial. Re-building a boat in 2 years is very doable, if you have the skills and tools. Acquiring the skills and tools, while doing it, and working, not really. 9/10 fail especially on a big boat. You can live and cruise on a 10 m or 33 ft boat, but it is too small for me and family, to live on permanently. On a small boat, you can lift everything yourself. On a big boat, powered equipment is vital, to save your strength for the important stuff. If you want to succeed at it, make a list of what you will do. Excel is good. Publish it. Make a major-systems list, with subheadings for each one, and a minor systems list. Ask yourself, can I do THAT ? How long will it take ? What will it cost ? Who will do it, at what cost, when, if I cant ? Can you clean the bilges ? Align the propshaft ? Check the motor mounts/alignment/shaft for straightness ? Check the tanks ? Winches ? Batteries/electrical ? And so on.. > Matt > Most people do not realize the time and effort it takes to rebuild or > to build > a boat to completion until its to late > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 24997|24968|2011-01-23 05:00:32|Denis Buggy|Re: retro-fitting bilge keels and a skeg|dear Matt there are others who know much more than I do about this --- however if you can lay your hands on an engineers magnetic instrument for checking the thickness of steel plate -- you could do some of the boat survey yourself . this small electronic gadget is the size of a mobile phone and is able to tell the thickness of real metal as opposed to paint over rust or fillers by measuring the magnetic power of the surface ---- thin metal = thin signal expressed in mm . these are common and if you have compressors or tanks for chemicals your insurance co will send somebody each year to walk around the tanks and check their thickness --- so getting a loan of one of these should not be a problem ---regards Denis Buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: normanbywaite To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 5:09 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: retro-fitting bilge keels and a skeg Thanks Brent and everyone, So if i look into the nooks and go tapping away with a hammer and centrepunch, what am i looking for? A change in the sound the punch makes? To find thin areas? Or am i looking for rust under the paint and insulation? I know that on my car the rust under the paint makes a bubble that can be seen easily. Mention was made earlier of hull thickness. My interest in metal boats is because of the strength, but i guess if the metal is too thin and easily pierced then the advantage is lost? Forgive my metal-working ignorance, but can a metal hull that's a bit on the thin side be beefed up in some way later? I really appreciate the advice fellas. I've been on a few forums over the years and even though i'm very unlikely to be building an origami boat, i find the depth of knowledge and experience on this forum to be unparalelled. So i hope you'll indulge me asking slightly non-origami type questions. Cheers, Matt Melbourne, Australia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 24998|24968|2011-01-23 05:25:01|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: retro-fitting bilge keels and a skeg|IF the hull is thin, you need to replace the steel plate. It is very laborious, often exceeding the value of the hull. Cut out all the old thin metal and then re-plate. Cut to size and shape, bend in place, weld outside and inside, grind (lightly) the seams, paint. Hulls are usually ok, unless there is corrosion under insulation or paint. If there is, usually the whole hull or large amounts of it need to be replaced. Paint and insulation is rel. expensive. Steel is relatively cheap. Work cost can be anything, from 70-150$ at yard prices in Europe or the US, to yourself (no cost) to 5-10$/hr in some parts of the world. A welder will work for 8€ an hour, in Spain, today. Wont be a ships carpenter, or anything like that, just someone who somewhat knows how to weld. (The 8€/hr is for a months gig, or 1500€). If you work alongside with a welder, big holes and numerous plates can be changed in a months work. However, lifting equipment will more than double your efficiency and output. BTW- Engineering qty stainless (304 alloy, in 50 kg+ amounts) is about 6,41€/kg in Spain, at the moment. Used to be 11€ 6 months ago. A 60mm x 400 mm billet cost 7 kg x 6,41 or 44,87 + 16% tax. Just checked from invoice. This will make 20 mm thick solid stainless nobs for my cnc machines. Also known as manual pulse generators or MPGs. > Forgive my metal-working ignorance, but can a metal hull that's a bit > on the thin side be beefed up in some way later? | 24999|24968|2011-01-23 08:56:11|martin demers|Re: retro-fitting bilge keels and a skeg|I have bought a metal thickness meter on Ebay, for less than $200.00, to verify my hull thickness. A few people sell them on Ebay. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: buggy@... Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:00:41 +0000 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: retro-fitting bilge keels and a skeg dear Matt there are others who know much more than I do about this --- however if you can lay your hands on an engineers magnetic instrument for checking the thickness of steel plate -- you could do some of the boat survey yourself . this small electronic gadget is the size of a mobile phone and is able to tell the thickness of real metal as opposed to paint over rust or fillers by measuring the magnetic power of the surface ---- thin metal = thin signal expressed in mm . these are common and if you have compressors or tanks for chemicals your insurance co will send somebody each year to walk around the tanks and check their thickness --- so getting a loan of one of these should not be a problem ---regards Denis Buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: normanbywaite To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 5:09 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: retro-fitting bilge keels and a skeg Thanks Brent and everyone, So if i look into the nooks and go tapping away with a hammer and centrepunch, what am i looking for? A change in the sound the punch makes? To find thin areas? Or am i looking for rust under the paint and insulation? I know that on my car the rust under the paint makes a bubble that can be seen easily. Mention was made earlier of hull thickness. My interest in metal boats is because of the strength, but i guess if the metal is too thin and easily pierced then the advantage is lost? Forgive my metal-working ignorance, but can a metal hull that's a bit on the thin side be beefed up in some way later? I really appreciate the advice fellas. I've been on a few forums over the years and even though i'm very unlikely to be building an origami boat, i find the depth of knowledge and experience on this forum to be unparalelled. So i hope you'll indulge me asking slightly non-origami type questions. Cheers, Matt Melbourne, Australia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25000|24849|2011-01-23 11:22:50|Matt Malone|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Wild, Note: The floor of a shipping container is typically marine plywood, not steel. The top of a shipping container is very springy. 3 feet of snow and a man's weight can make it hump downward significantly. Also, I believe it was CNC pointed out wracking. Yes, shipping containers are meant to be lifted at the corners. However, I did toy with the idea of a 2-masted steel sailboat that had a cargo hold/bay in the middle that held one 20 ft shipping container. Might be 70 feet long though. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:05:18 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? Clarification: I meant to build a boat AROUND shipping container, NOT FROM it. But I do appreciate the comment. Purpose of a container - watertight compartment inside the boat and extra hull's reinforcement. It might require extra frame for the container (if want to load/unload a container). Boat will be single chin double-ender. Kind of container-carrier, but container is inside. The beauty of Brent's design, hull could be folded by one person. Regular origami is OK up to 40 ft (as DIY). Bigger boat may need slightly different approach. I am re-thinking "boat around container" concept. If made from separate peaces of plates, such plates would be heavy to move around and lift anyway + extra welding. It is possible to make hull-half from 2 strips, but will require lifting equipment. P.S. Just exploring possibilities ;) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > > A shipping container will absolutely not work as a boat, and it is > very, very weak in torsion. > It would break apart quickly. > The wracking stresses (twist) on boats are hundreds of tons. Boats > resist this precisely because of the shape and material they are. > Boats bend, quite a lot, and are built in a way that it does not matter. > Boats do not (mostly) resist the force, they are supported by the water, > and it either flows past them, or around them. > > Containers are very strong vertically, only. They are extremely light > for their size. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |