25001|24849|2011-01-23 11:44:55|Ben Okopnik|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:22:42AM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > 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. Why not just build a 70' or so boat and run a pair of bulkheads across it? Done deal, no need to contort your boat to a shape that doesn't fit it or to waste space that could be put to better use. 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| 25002|24993|2011-01-23 12:05:04|Ben Okopnik|Re: sell up and sail - fact or fiction|On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 05:38:58AM -0000, normanbywaite wrote: > > Why do people's "sell-up and sail away" plans go awry? "Life is what happens when you're making other plans." I've been living aboard since 1991, and cruising since 1993, and I've seen so many people's plans fall apart that I could write a book on it. At the top level is the fact that people get the dream/action ratio wrong: they spend their lives dreaming about How They're Going To, and by the time they have the money, leisure, kids out of the house, etc., they're too old and too worn out to go. Next down is the commitment factor: most people's plans are _so_ complex and _so_ long that something is guaranteed to come along and knock them sideways. After that comes the lack of self-awareness: most people can't tell the difference between the stories they like to tell themselves and what's real for them. Somebody can spend 20 years working toward "sailing away when they retire", only to find out after the first day afloat that they really hate that life. Or - maybe worse - find out that it was a status symbol all along, and not really what they wanted to do at all. I've met _plenty_ of those; hell, half the cruising wives in the Bahamas (at least those in the gold-plated floating palaces) will tell you that they just went along 'cause the hubby wanted it (*there's* a brewing hurricane if I ever saw one...) Brent's whole approach - build good, fast, and cheap, and get going *now* - appeals to me on every level because it bypasses a whole lot of the traps and the bull. If you're not really committed, you won't get through even the initial stages. If you've got enough energy, skill, and drive to get through building a boat, you'll have a lot of the skills and the self-reliance to be well prepared for the cruising life. 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| 25003|24849|2011-01-23 13:27:53|wild_explorer|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Matt, Ben, CNC 6 axis - thanks for all your advices and concerns. I did play with this idea for couples of days, but I finally realized that 65-70 ft boat will be too big for me. And it does not matter what building method (concept) I use. I just do not have 30-40 tonnes of belongings to put on it ;)) Or plan to use it to move containers/families ... I do appreciate all good advices you gave me. That why I like this group. It is blend of knowledge and experience. Brent is right again - build a sailboat as small as you can afford. ;) It is nice to have preliminary specs and numbers to get the picture. Idea is dead. Amen! But topic may not. I think that good boat is necessity - not luxury. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:22:42AM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > 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. > > Why not just build a 70' or so boat and run a pair of bulkheads across > it? Done deal, no need to contort your boat to a shape that doesn't fit > it or to waste space that could be put to better use. > > > Ben | 25004|24849|2011-01-23 13:50:51|Matt Malone|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|The purpose would be to carry an actual 20' shipping container, i.e., a small boat capable of carrying containerized commercial cargo to a small port, far from a proper container port, say a place with no roads leading to it. Like mountainous island areas. The space on either side, below and above would be used. Tankage comes to mind below and to the sides. Above would be a crawlway, build into the deck hatches, that would add stiffness to the hatches and allow crew movement from the front to the back in poor conditions. Yes, maybe not an altogether practical idea, but I did say "toy with the idea", generally an indication I found it impractical at all times. Besides, how much money could possibly be made transporting legal cargo in such small quantities ? Would it be sustaining ? Would it help the cruising budget at all ? The hassle and headache of commercial insurance etc. There has to be a reason why it is not done. Matt --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 11:44:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:22:42AM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > 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. Why not just build a 70' or so boat and run a pair of bulkheads across it? Done deal, no need to contort your boat to a shape that doesn't fit it or to waste space that could be put to better use. 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] | 25005|24849|2011-01-23 14:01:23|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Actually, it is done. I dove on the wreck of one such boat, with an old 1950s style dodge on the deck, in perfect shape. Sunk about 5 years ago, in Roatan, Honduras. I was there in maybe 2005-2006. The cargo container was still on deck. In many parts of the world, small scale commerce can be extremely profitable for a small, single-master owner operator. The key here is that the goods be perishable in type or size and that the market be small, or affluent, and that there not be enough market for bigger operators. It sunk cause the boat sprang a leak, and the single pump did not work. They got another boat to help, but it´s pump didn´t work either. As our dive went to 76 m deep, I am one of very, very few to visitors have gone there. Only technical diving and professionals, I am afraid. We had extra gear with us, and there were 2 of us. And we are both diving professionals (instructor and divemaster). It was an incredible dive, and one of my best memories. About 1 hour and 5 min, iirc. > The purpose would be to carry an actual 20' shipping container, i.e., > a small boat capable of carrying containerized commercial cargo to a > small port, far from a proper container port, say a place with no > roads leading to it. Like mountainous island areas. The space on > either side, below and above would be used. Tankage comes to mind > below and to the sides. Above would be a crawlway, build into the deck > hatches, that would add stiffness to the hatches and allow crew > movement from the front to the back in poor conditions. > > Yes, maybe not an altogether practical idea, but I did say "toy with > the idea", generally an indication I found it impractical at all > times. Besides, how much money could possibly be made transporting > legal cargo in such small quantities ? Would it be sustaining ? Would > it help the cruising budget at all ? The hassle and headache of > commercial insurance etc. There has to be a reason why it is not done. > > Matt > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25006|25006|2011-01-23 16:20:56|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|diesel engine winterizing|Hi, I just realized this morning, when I saw the ice cracked in my dog's bowl and also that it was -25 C, that there might be some water left in my engine in my boat (it's a VW pathfinder) I remember having remove the water in the heat exchanger when I dropped it in the boat but that's about it. I hope it wont crack anything; block, head... Martin.| 25007|24849|2011-01-23 16:36:43|wild_explorer|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|OK, Matt. It could be useful to discuss this hypothetical project. Let say 20ft and 40ft boat-container-carrier. I already have 3D model, so I could play another day with it and provide some numbers. It might give people an idea what is involved to build a boat. I am still trying to figure it out by myself. And I am not boat designer - be easy on me. What might be interesting for the group: - materials needed for both models (steel, paint, etc) - directly related to the cost. - load capacity - preliminary estimate for sea worthiness - pro, cons for both models - what else??? I can see several reasons why private containers moving is not so popular: -I have a coworker who got a quote for shipping 20ft and 40ft container by ocean freighter (plus 2 weeks for load/unload it). The difference was about $400 (from Northern California to Costa Rica). And it was about $2000 - loading/unloading. In some places it would be hard to do, unless you can unload container by yourself from boat to dock or land. - not so many people will agree to expedite its own container (travel with you - less responsibility for you) This "container" idea popped-up when I was looking how to reinforce hull's shell and thinking about survivability of the boat. Side to side load/stress of the hull could be transferred through container frame. If container watertight - it might be a reason to use it as watertight compartment, If not - does not make any sense (need to make watertight cargo bay at that case). Container will need some holding frame in the hull anyway - acts as reinforcement for the hull. --- In origamiboats@yser easoneahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > The purpose would be to carry an actual 20' shipping container, i.e., a small boat capable of carrying containerized commercial cargo to a small port, far from a proper container port, say a place with no roads leading to it. Like mountainous island areas. The space on either side, below and above would be used. Tankage comes to mind below and to the sides. Above would be a crawlway, build into the deck hatches, that would add stiffness to the hatches and allow crew movement from the front to the back in poor conditions. > > Yes, maybe not an altogether practical idea, but I did say "toy with the idea", generally an indication I found it impractical at all times. Besides, how much money could possibly be made transporting legal cargo in such small quantities ? Would it be sustaining ? Would it help the cruising budget at all ? The hassle and headache of commercial insurance etc. There has to be a reason why it is not done. > > Matt | 25008|24849|2011-01-23 16:42:39|wild_explorer|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|If that boat had container inside the hull (assuming that container was not leaking and overloaded) it might have a chance - less water to get in (displacement of the container). Carrying cargo container on a deck reduce boat's stability as well. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > Actually, it is done. > > I dove on the wreck of one such boat, with an old 1950s style dodge on > the deck, in perfect shape. > Sunk about 5 years ago, in Roatan, Honduras. I was there in maybe 2005-2006. > The cargo container was still on deck. | 25009|24849|2011-01-23 19:48:03|Gord Schnell|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Jim Does that "computer" (brain) of yours ever take a break?? You do come up with some pretty "wild" ideas.....at least we know your still with us. How is life? Gord On 2011-01-22, at 12:01 PM, wild_explorer wrote: > 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 > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25010|24993|2011-01-24 10:53:26|Larry Dale|Re: sell up and sail - fact or fiction|A friend of mine (a millwright) went in with 2 of his friends to build the forms and then the hull and deck for 3 Bruce Roberts 25' sailboats. My friend has been sailing his for 17 years. After the hull and deck were done he rigged it, put an engine in and went sailing. He finished the interior as he sailed it over the years. The second guy set out to create a gold plater out of his 25' boat and was almost done when he died. HE NEVER GOT TO SAIL HIS BOAT THAT HE SPENT 15 YEARS BUILDING - how sad. The third guy still has his fiberglass shell in his yard - It was offered to me for sale a couple of years ago. I would coucil you to buy a 20-30 year old fiberglass sailboat now. There are plenty around for cheap. Find one that is sound and sailable. If you get a small (20'-25') trailersailor you can keep it at home and avoid yard bills. Then take 1-2 week sailing vacations each year. What this will do is: (1) allow you to experience different sailing areas. (2) allow you to see if you and your wife like extended sailing. (3) the skills that you learn (engine and rig maintenance, sailing,navigation, anchoring skills) will be usefull later on. (4) you will learn what works and doesn't work on a boat first hand. Therefore you will learn what you want on your future cruising boat. (5) you will make contacts in the cruising/sailing community which will help you now and in the future.  --- On Sun, 1/23/11, normanbywaite wrote: From: normanbywaite Subject: [origamiboats] sell up and sail - fact or fiction To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Sunday, January 23, 2011, 12:38 AM 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 ------------------------------------ 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] | 25011|24849|2011-01-24 14:02:12|wild_explorer|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Gord, are not we all here (in this forum) because we like non-standard solutions? Brent's design itself such a proof. Criticized, questioned, etc... But it just works! Most things looks "crazy" until it actually done. You were among first "insane" people who picked Brent's design over others and built it. As it turned out, your boat is beautiful and better than most production boats. I saw it and can confirm it ;)) Ben was talking about trimaran which can outrun weather, Matt - how to reinforce the boat to withstand waves of the storm... Now, take a look at this beauty which can do 50kn (USS Independence LCS-2) http://media.techeblog.com/images/combat-ship.jpg It actually built and sailing ;) P.S. Life? Not bad, but still doing my boat on paper instead of actually building it. There are some questions I need to sort out first. This concept is just "side work" of thinking about reinforcement of the hull. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > Jim > Does that "computer" (brain) of yours ever take a break?? You do come up with some pretty "wild" ideas.....at least we know your still with us. How is life? > Gord | 25012|24849|2011-01-24 14:27:03|Gord Schnell|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Good to hear from you Jim! I have been battling computer problems for the last few weeks. Still not fully resolved. That's why my communications is "spotty". Gord On 2011-01-24, at 11:02 AM, wild_explorer wrote: > Gord, are not we all here (in this forum) because we like non-standard solutions? Brent's design itself such a proof. Criticized, questioned, etc... But it just works! > > Most things looks "crazy" until it actually done. You were among first "insane" people who picked Brent's design over others and built it. As it turned out, your boat is beautiful and better than most production boats. I saw it and can confirm it ;)) > > Ben was talking about trimaran which can outrun weather, Matt - how to reinforce the boat to withstand waves of the storm... Now, take a look at this beauty which can do 50kn (USS Independence LCS-2) > > http://media.techeblog.com/images/combat-ship.jpg > > It actually built and sailing ;) > > P.S. Life? Not bad, but still doing my boat on paper instead of actually building it. There are some questions I need to sort out first. This concept is just "side work" of thinking about reinforcement of the hull. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > > > Jim > > Does that "computer" (brain) of yours ever take a break?? You do come up with some pretty "wild" ideas.....at least we know your still with us. How is life? > > Gord > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25013|24993|2011-01-24 15:02:23|A Ellzey|Re: sell up and sail - fact or fiction|The story you tell of the man who died before he finished his sailboat is only sad if he did not enjoy the work he was doing on it. If he did take pleasure in the process then his efforts worth it. I believe that this is the true test of whether you build-renovate or buy an already sailable craft. Are you going to enjoy the process? ________________________________ From: Larry Dale To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 10:53:25 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] sell up and sail - fact or fiction   A friend of mine (a millwright) went in with 2 of his friends to build the forms and then the hull and deck for 3 Bruce Roberts 25' sailboats. My friend has been sailing his for 17 years. After the hull and deck were done he rigged it, put an engine in and went sailing. He finished the interior as he sailed it over the years. The second guy set out to create a gold plater out of his 25' boat and was almost done when he died. HE NEVER GOT TO SAIL HIS BOAT THAT HE SPENT 15 YEARS BUILDING - how sad. The third guy still has his fiberglass shell in his yard - It was offered to me for sale a couple of years ago. I would coucil you to buy a 20-30 year old fiberglass sailboat now. There are plenty around for cheap. Find one that is sound and sailable. If you get a small (20'-25') trailersailor you can keep it at home and avoid yard bills. Then take 1-2 week sailing vacations each year. What this will do is: (1) allow you to experience different sailing areas. (2) allow you to see if you and your wife like extended sailing. (3) the skills that you learn (engine and rig maintenance, sailing,navigation, anchoring skills) will be usefull later on. (4) you will learn what works and doesn't work on a boat first hand. Therefore you will learn what you want on your future cruising boat. (5) you will make contacts in the cruising/sailing community which will help you now and in the future.  --- On Sun, 1/23/11, normanbywaite wrote: From: normanbywaite Subject: [origamiboats] sell up and sail - fact or fiction To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Sunday, January 23, 2011, 12:38 AM 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 ------------------------------------ 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] | 25014|25014|2011-01-24 17:49:18|martin|Gooseneck Parts|Hi All; I'm starting to build the gooseneck for Prairie Maid. Her mast is 6.5in. round alluminum and I'm trying to work out a way of connecting the gooseneck to the mast using a piece of 316SS tubing That is basicaly the same size as the mast I'm thinking of splitting the tube in half so I end up with 2,4in. bands that I'll weld 4in. flat bar to and then be able to bolt the 2 bands around the mast with a rubber gasket between the SS and the Alum.mast. What I need to know is, are there bushings required around the pins that allow the boom to swivel on the horizontal and verticle? The few pictures I can find don't show anything that helps. My last day sailer was SS. on SS. Also what is an approriate size for those two pins? I've got some 5/8solid stock SS and some smaller pieces. What has everyone else been using on thier B.S 36 rigs?? Thanks Martin..| 25015|25015|2011-01-24 18:14:47|brentswain38|Banned ,two more times|I just got baned form two more sites for telling people of simpler and less expensive ways of doing things, from Metalboatsociety.org and metalboatbuilding.org . The straw that broke the camels back was me suggesting that a simple ss pipe nipple welded in was all that was needed for thru hulls, instead of a complex arrangement of mild steel pipes, bolts and flanges. I was told that I was not allowed to disagree with anyone , but anyone else on the site is allowed to disagree with me. If two people disagree with one another, I'm only allowed to agree with both of them. There appears to be a concerted effort to throw as many disinformation hurdles as possible in front of people attempting to do their own work, to try and make commercial operations more relevant . I've been told that designers are hurting for lack of business, and wherever they go they see far more of my designs than their own. I've been told that when my clients go to a commercial rigger, and are asked what they are building, they say "A Brent Swain design." They respond with " Another one of those assholes, who build all their own gear, and buy nothing." So they resort to censorship, an admission that their arguments cant stand the test of an open debate. They are trying to censor out any information that there is any alternative but the expensive solutions they are trying to sell . I would appreciate it if some of you ( the more the better ) would go to those sites and post the warning "Anyone caught disagreeing with any of these posts will be banned. We are her to promote orthodoxy, not to advance boat building." Thanks .| 25016|24849|2011-01-24 18:22:03|brentswain38|Re: How to lie in a storm|Its easier to recover your anchor from the bow in a blow. I find it easy to drop it from the bow, then loop the rode over a stern bitt. If it is blowing by then, I throw a rolling hitch from a long line around the rode , take the end of the line to the stern , tie it on and let the bow rode out till I am stern to the wind , then take it in until I have the bow rode close enough to drop it over the stern bit. To get underway , I let the loop over the stern bit go, let her swing head to the wind, then raise the anchor in the usual way. With a mooring , you can do everything from the stern, which makes picking up a mooring much easier. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > 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] > | 25017|24968|2011-01-24 18:23:52|brentswain38|Re: retro-fitting bilge keels and a skeg|Give it a good hard whack . If it doesn't dent the hull ,or go thru, it is probably thick enough. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "normanbywaite" wrote: > > 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 > | 25018|25015|2011-01-24 18:31:22|Doug Jackson|Re: Banned ,two more times|One of life's hard lessons, amigo: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." --Napoleon Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 5:14:44 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Banned ,two more times I just got baned form two more sites for telling people of simpler and less expensive ways of doing things, from Metalboatsociety.org and metalboatbuilding.org . The straw that broke the camels back was me suggesting that a simple ss pipe nipple welded in was all that was needed for thru hulls, instead of a complex arrangement of mild steel pipes, bolts and flanges. I was told that I was not allowed to disagree with anyone , but anyone else on the site is allowed to disagree with me. If two people disagree with one another, I'm only allowed to agree with both of them. There appears to be a concerted effort to throw as many disinformation hurdles as possible in front of people attempting to do their own work, to try and make commercial operations more relevant . I've been told that designers are hurting for lack of business, and wherever they go they see far more of my designs than their own. I've been told that when my clients go to a commercial rigger, and are asked what they are building, they say "A Brent Swain design." They respond with " Another one of those assholes, who build all their own gear, and buy nothing." So they resort to censorship, an admission that their arguments cant stand the test of an open debate. They are trying to censor out any information that there is any alternative but the expensive solutions they are trying to sell . I would appreciate it if some of you ( the more the better ) would go to those sites and post the warning "Anyone caught disagreeing with any of these posts will be banned. We are her to promote orthodoxy, not to advance boat building." Thanks . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25019|24993|2011-01-24 18:42:36|brentswain38|Re: sell up and sail - fact or fiction|Most fail because they get sucked in by everyone trying to sell them everything under the sun, and buying the sales pitch that "If you don't buy this ,(which didn't exist for cruisers a few decades ago) you will sink for sure." I remember going to Vancouver with a guy who was rigging his new boat, after having sold his house. He bought new Bomar hatches saying "Well I have the money." Before he was rigged he was saying "Well I had the money." It ran out before his mast was up. Don't overestimate how much money you have . Anything which can be done on the cheap and easily replaced later, should it become a priority , should be rigged cheaply. Get her sailing first , then decide, after a bit of cruising, what you really need. When cruisers reach San Diego on their way south they meet ship swindlers who will lend you a car and do everything to make you feel comfortable and stay longer. Then they work on you , saying"Boy ,you better buy a few of these and those , before you get to Mexico,or you will sure regret not having some. Many, being first time cruisers, are a bit fearful, and are easily suckered in. A few months later , gaining a bit more experience are asking themselves "What am I doing with all this junk? Where did my cruising fund go?" Keep it simple . You can complicate it later. The fixer upper will be well sorted out by the time you go cruising. You can rent space from a farmer, and save a lot over boatyards. One of my clients said it is cheaper to haul a boat out in the fall and launch it in the spring than to pay moorage all winter. He launched her, absolute bare bones interior, cruised all summer, and decided what he wanted, then hauled it to a cheap rental space finished her, then relaunched in spring. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "normanbywaite" wrote: > > 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 > | 25020|24849|2011-01-24 18:44:34|brentswain38|Re: Sail speed story|What about going over there and buying a cheap backyard boat for the Canals only? Does that require a card? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > 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. > | 25021|25021|2011-01-24 18:49:17|rooster|Re; banned|Sorry to hear..I have read some of those treads and have noticed the narrow minded thinking...my BS is way more stout and fair than my hungry horse Roberts I had previously...nothing wrong with welded nipples...most people I have talked to not online agree...lots of HAZ on traditional metal hulls.| 25022|24993|2011-01-24 18:54:37|brentswain38|Re: sell up and sail - fact or fiction|Systems Sewage system ,a composter head.Hook up vent and fan. Done. Electrical system. Plastic conduit under the deck hull joint. Wiring to be done later, as needed, in peaceful anchorages, with all the time in the world. Hobby rather than drudgery. . Done for now. Kerosene lamps to get out cruising quickly and cheaply. Some LED garden lights and head lights for reading. Wire in simple running lights. Water system , a galley foot pump, pumping out of a plastic jerry can. The rest to be done in some peaceful anchorage, with all the time in the world. Done for now. A few days work. Go cruising, and deal with making things more complicated later , if you still feel so inclined. What other systems did you have in mind? Or does this pretty well cover "Systems?" Boy, that was easy! --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > 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] > | 25023|25014|2011-01-24 19:06:51|brentswain38|Re: Gooseneck Parts|SS on SS seems to work fine, for slow moving parts . My goose neck and anchor winch have been that way for 27 years, with no problem. Bolting the goose neck to the mast works well. I'd use a polyurethane for bedding , like the $7 a tube , black or white bulldog grip, from Home Hardware. The cheaper $4 a tube beige stuff is not as good. Will we see you out cruising on the coast this coming summer? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "martin" wrote: > > Hi All; I'm starting to build the gooseneck for Prairie Maid. Her mast is 6.5in. round alluminum and I'm trying to work out a way of connecting the gooseneck to the mast using a piece of 316SS tubing That is basicaly the same size as the mast I'm thinking of splitting the tube in half so I end up with 2,4in. bands that I'll weld 4in. flat bar to and then be able to bolt the 2 bands around the mast with a rubber gasket between the SS and the Alum.mast. What I need to know is, are there bushings required around the pins that allow the boom to swivel on the horizontal and verticle? The few pictures I can find don't show anything that helps. My last day sailer was SS. on SS. Also what is an approriate size for those two pins? I've got some 5/8solid stock SS and some smaller pieces. What has everyone else been using on thier B.S 36 rigs?? Thanks Martin.. > | 25024|25014|2011-01-24 19:17:30|martin|Gooseneck Parts|Thanks for the info Brent. Not sure when I'll get her out to the salt. Lately it's been removing the snow from everything around here that is a major priority. Over a meter on my garage roof alone. You didn't say how large the pins for the gooseneck should be. Thanks Martin...| 25025|24993|2011-01-24 19:25:17|David Frantz|Re: sell up and sail - fact or fiction|There is of course more than one perspective here. I for one like to build things though I've not tackled a boat yet. So yeah I can understand the satisfaction that comes from building just about anything. However I'm now getting up there in years and frankly wish that I had come across this site years ago. Frankly I always looked at the idea of owning a boat as something that was out of reach. That is not a good attitude to have after seeing all the ways to skin a cat here. The question of do I really want to do this could have been answered years ago. So yeah maybe building that gold platter was enjoyable, the problem is the guy never got a chance to find other joys in life. I know one thing if somebody in their twenties or even their thirties came up to me and asked about sailing or boating in general I'd tell them to try it NOW, and read some of Brents advice here (well the whole forums advice). The fact is you won't know until you try. David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. On Jan 24, 2011, at 3:02 PM, A Ellzey wrote: > The story you tell of the man who died before he finished his sailboat is only > sad if he did not enjoy the work he was doing on it. If he did take pleasure in > the process then his efforts worth it. I believe that this is the true test of > whether you build-renovate or buy an already sailable craft. Are you going to > enjoy the process? > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Larry Dale > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 10:53:25 AM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] sell up and sail - fact or fiction > > > A friend of mine (a millwright) went in with 2 of his friends to build the forms > and then the hull and deck for 3 Bruce Roberts 25' sailboats. My friend has been > sailing his for 17 years. After the hull and deck were done he rigged it, put an > engine in and went sailing. He finished the interior as he sailed it over the > years. The second guy set out to create a gold plater out of his 25' boat and > was almost done when he died. HE NEVER GOT TO SAIL HIS BOAT THAT HE SPENT 15 > YEARS BUILDING - how sad. The third guy still has his fiberglass shell in his > yard - It was offered to me for sale a couple of years ago. > I would coucil you to buy a 20-30 year old fiberglass sailboat now. There are > plenty around for cheap. Find one that is sound and sailable. If you get a small > (20'-25') trailersailor you can keep it at home and avoid yard bills. Then take > 1-2 week sailing vacations each year. What this will do is: > (1) allow you to experience different sailing areas. > (2) allow you to see if you and your wife like extended sailing. > (3) the skills that you learn (engine and rig maintenance, sailing,navigation, > anchoring skills) will be usefull later on. > (4) you will learn what works and doesn't work on a boat first hand. Therefore > you will learn what you want on your future cruising boat. > (5) you will make contacts in the cruising/sailing community which will help you > now and in the future. > --- On Sun, 1/23/11, normanbywaite wrote: > > From: normanbywaite > Subject: [origamiboats] sell up and sail - fact or fiction > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Sunday, January 23, 2011, 12:38 AM > > 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 > > ------------------------------------ > > 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 > > > | 25026|25015|2011-01-24 21:39:43|wild_explorer|Re: Banned ,two more times|Blink... Blink (again)... Your way of making trough-hulls looks logical. Am I missing something? May be that why I do not feel necessity to read professional boat building forums? ;)) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I just got baned form two more sites for telling people of simpler and less expensive ways of doing things, from Metalboatsociety.org and metalboatbuilding.org . The straw that broke the camels back was me suggesting that a simple ss pipe nipple welded in was all that was needed for thru hulls, instead of a complex arrangement of mild steel pipes, bolts and flanges. | 25027|24993|2011-01-24 23:20:14|Matt Malone|Re: sell up and sail - fact or fiction|Absolutely! 20 -25' Trailerable. I have a '73 Grampian 23' (just so one may look it up to get an idea) -- headroom is a little low in most of the cabin but it has a a pop-top to 6' 3", stove, sink, head, sleeps 5 people -- 3400 lbs. The cockpit is a little small too, but it is a great little boat. If one has a pickup truck, one can haul it most anywhere. * One can sleep in a boat that is not in the water * Think of a trailerable boat like this as a travel trailer than can go in the water. Motor-wise, most boats in this class have an outboard. A little 9.9hp is good. I used a 4hp. One feature of boats of the early 1970s is, some, like the Grampians, are solid hull, and no skimping on fibreglass (comparatively) -- it was before the oil embargo and the rising cost of resin. Most all small boats of this size will have a cored deck, and that can mean some work, around bolts and fittings that have allowed water leakage into the core, but the work is really not that bad. My boat has only one through-hull, for the galley sink. One can sure go a long way in a boat like this. Many years ago, I got mine for $2,500 and did some painting, spare tires for the trailer, paid $1,400 for a dock on a nice lake for a year, and had a lot of fun. I never took mine traveling, mainly because I really liked my lake and it needed a deeper launch than an ordinary motorboat launch. Like some other boats in this class, they sometimes have a swing keel, or water ballast, or shoal keel with a swing keel contained inside -- mine is like that. In the winter, I park it on its trailer, for free, on my rural property. A friend of mine has a 24' clone of a Volksboat -- also solid hull, tough little boat. He has set up a windvane and everything. His is a inboard engine, and is not trailerable at all. It is a lot more work. He has to have a yard, a keelboat berth, and pay winter storage. His costs are at least $3,500 a year. There is a huge difference between a keelboat, even a small one and a trailer-launchable boat with a smaller, swing or combination keel I strongly recommend a 20 - 25 ' trailerable. To try it out weekend / week-long sailing trips. I also have a 16' trailerable. Sleeping in it is more like tenting, but it is an order of magnitude easier again over a 23' boat, but one has to be very careful because 20 - 30 knot blustery weather and being over-sailed is a recipe for swimming. If one likes swimming, then get a Laser, and give up any idea of sleeping on it at all. Matt -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: roboman3234@... Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 07:53:25 -0800 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] sell up and sail - fact or fiction ........ I would coucil you to buy a 20-30 year old fiberglass sailboat now. There are plenty around for cheap. Find one that is sound and sailable. If you get a small (20'-25') trailersailor you can keep it at home and avoid yard bills. Then take 1-2 week sailing vacations each year. What this will do is: (1) allow you to experience different sailing areas. (2) allow you to see if you and your wife like extended sailing. (3) the skills that you learn (engine and rig maintenance, sailing,navigation, anchoring skills) will be usefull later on. (4) you will learn what works and doesn't work on a boat first hand. Therefore you will learn what you want on your future cruising boat. (5) you will make contacts in the cruising/sailing community which will help you now and in the future. --- On Sun, 1/23/11, normanbywaite wrote: [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25028|25015|2011-01-24 23:57:29|Norm Moore|Re: Banned ,two more times|As I recall Brent I discovered you on The Metal Boat Society. There would be a discussion meandering around something that everyone had an opinion on, but little or no direct experience with until you would point out simple solutions that worked and they all would just shut up. You ended more threads authoritatively than all the arm chair philosophers there. It probably pissed people off to be so soundly upstaged. That was the reason I left what even then appeared to be a dying group, (which since splintered and became even more like a club gathering). IMO it's truly their loss. It's bad enough the marine industry controls all the major boating publications. I think you've also won over some unexpected converts. Evan Stazinger now recommends building parts with the help of the local machine shop to buying anything "marine" at the chandlers. Wonder where he got that philosophy from - probably Louis Riel... Norm Moore 559-645-5314 ________________________________ From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 6:36:22 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Banned ,two more times Blink... Blink (again)... Your way of making trough-hulls looks logical. Am I missing something? May be that why I do not feel necessity to read professional boat building forums? ;)) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I just got baned form two more sites for telling people of simpler and less >expensive ways of doing things, from Metalboatsociety.org and >metalboatbuilding.org . The straw that broke the camels back was me suggesting >that a simple ss pipe nipple welded in was all that was needed for thru hulls, >instead of a complex arrangement of mild steel pipes, bolts and flanges. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25029|24993|2011-01-25 01:08:56|normanbywaite|Re: sell up and sail - fact or fiction|Quote: "If you get a small (20'-25') trailer sailer you can keep it at home and avoid yard bills. Then take 1-2 week sailing vacations each year. What this will do is: (1) allow you to experience different sailing areas. (2) allow you to see if you and your wife like extended sailing. (3) the skills that you learn (engine and rig maintenance, sailing, navigation, anchoring skills) will be useful later on. (4) you will learn what works and doesn't work on a boat first hand. Therefore you will learn what you want on your future cruising boat. (5) you will make contacts in the cruising/sailing community which will help you now and in the future." Hi Larry, Thanks for this, though I didn't realise that I had given the impression that I'm new to this sailing malarky. I currently have two trailer sailers in the back yard and the dog and I go sailing as often as we can, usually a minimum or four days, maximum of about ten days, depending on weather and work/parenting commitments. So i've got a pretty good idea of what i'm in for, and what i'll need. There's no wife to complicate my goals, for which I'm grateful. Cheers, Matt.| 25030|24849|2011-01-25 02:54:10|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Sail speed story|Yes and no. You need "a card" but most any are accepted. Likewise, if you don´t have a title of some sort, some places (France) give you a days instruction and send you on their way. In Spain, it goes by boat size. Total crap, and most rich owners (98% of spanish boaters) have cards that are bought by bribes. And this is not hearsay. Finland has 30 times more boats per capita than Spain, and Spain has all the coasts and weather. A 24 m boat mooring was 200.000EUR 6 year ago in PMI. And thats a 15 year rental. Cant buy it, and when time is up your out the cash. A 13 m mooring is about 90.000EUR, or 120.000 $, near Barcelona. 2 years ago. Plus upkeep, which I dont know about, but suspect maybe 1000EUR-2000EUR/yr. A rental mooring for 13m is maybe 400-700EUR per month, if you get a years contract. It used to be, you could only get them if you contract for and pay a full year. In PMI, a months morring was 40-60.000EUR for a 20 m boat- you pay a full year, or dont get it. Thats if you want to be there in august. I´ve never done canals in Spain. > What about going over there and buying a cheap backyard boat for the > Canals only? Does that require a card? > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25031|24993|2011-01-25 07:55:13|sae140|Re: sell up and sail - fact or fiction|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "normanbywaite" wrote: > > [...] 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 > There are some people who cherish the dream of 'selling-up and sailing away' but who ('deep-down') actually never really want to. That is, it is the dream that is important for them (presumably as a method of coping with life's difficulties), and not the reality of life on the water. Some examples: I know of one guy who has bought dozens of study plans, and who studies these for weeks at a time - always finding one fault or another with them, and so never actually buys the full plans, nor starts a build. This has been going on for years, and I suspect will continue ad infinitum. Afaik, he has had no actual sailing experience. Last year in the local newspaper I read about one guy near here (Boston, UK) who built himself a live-aboard yacht in his back garden, and when interviewed about his achievement revealed that he had never been sailing, not even in a dinghy - but didn't foresee any problems ... Afaik, the boat is still in his back garden. I met (on the internet) a guy in Namibia who cherished 'the dream' and had spent years building himself a large trawler-style yacht with a commercial-sized hold, and was due to launch it within a few weeks. During our email exchanges I began to sense all was not exactly 'pukka' when he began inviting me over to help commission the boat. However, with a view to helping out I made further enquiries, including a casual question relating to what navigation equipment had been installed. I then learned that he intended to sail this vessel with rudementary charts - a child's atlas, and maps printed on tea-towels - that kind of thing. In amazement, I enquired further only to discover that he had never set foot on a boat in his life, but had read many books about Captain Cook and his contemporaries, and was under the impression that life at sea really hadn't changed much since then (even though he know well enough about super-tankers etc), and that his 'charts' were at least as accurate as Cook's would have been. I immediately introduced him to the realities of modern-day navigation, including Traffic Separation Zones and the substantial penalties which are imposed for non-compliance with their rules. He became angry and indignant that such measures were now in place in so many countries, and I spotted that his boat was up for sale a month or so later. Perhaps he had never intended to convert his dreams into reality - we'll never know. So there are three examples - ranging from the talker-dreamer who never gets started, to someone who completes his project in blissful ignorance of the realities of life afloat. You may have noticed that the common denominator appears to be the absence of sailing experience, even in dinghies or small craft. Perhaps that's relevant ?| 25032|25015|2011-01-25 09:56:27|Tom Mann|Re: Banned ,two more times|I didn't know you got banned there Brent, your still on the list Building boats is just like building anything else several ways to go about it . Just because something is simple does not mean it the best way or the only way to do it. Minumum scantling rules are there for a reason, you can follow them or not on your own boat, If you choose not does not mean they are stupid and out dated and if I or anyone else decides to follow them does not make us stupid. If I pick a design that is framed using 1/8" skins that has a hull shape that I like that follows the minimum scantlings and actualy comes out a bit lighter than framless. Does this mean I am stupid? You would not get banned if you didn't use the Brent Swain way or the highway approach with the little remarks that you throw in that in a round about way mean that we are stupid for not following your way. Nuff said Tom On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:14 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > I just got baned form two more sites for telling people of simpler and less > expensive ways of doing things, from Metalboatsociety.org and > metalboatbuilding.org . The straw that broke the camels back was me > suggesting that a simple ss pipe nipple welded in was all that was needed > for thru hulls, instead of a complex arrangement of mild steel pipes, bolts > and flanges. > I was told that I was not allowed to disagree with anyone , but anyone > else on the site is allowed to disagree with me. If two people disagree with > one another, I'm only allowed to agree with both of them. > There appears to be a concerted effort to throw as many disinformation > hurdles as possible in front of people attempting to do their own work, to > try and make commercial operations more relevant . I've been told that > designers are hurting for lack of business, and wherever they go they see > far more of my designs than their own. I've been told that when my clients > go to a commercial rigger, and are asked what they are building, they say "A > Brent Swain design." They respond with " Another one of those assholes, who > build all their own gear, and buy nothing." So they resort to censorship, an > admission that their arguments cant stand the test of an open debate. > They are trying to censor out any information that there is any > alternative but the expensive solutions they are trying to sell . > I would appreciate it if some of you ( the more the better ) would go to > those sites and post the warning > "Anyone caught disagreeing with any of these posts will be banned. We > are her to promote orthodoxy, not to advance boat building." > Thanks . > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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] | 25033|24993|2011-01-25 10:12:05|scott|Re: sell up and sail - fact or fiction|Here is my experience. My first boat was a shock santana 21.. about 1750 lbs with a swing keel. We sailed it off of the trailer.. It only drew 18 inches so we could use just about any boat ramp to put it in the water. I could sleep 4 in the cabin with a vberth and two quarterberths. It was of the camp on the boat variety with accommodations etc.. I ended up not sailing it that much because it took a solid 45 minutes once you got to the ramp to put it in the water.. Taking it out required another 35 to 45 minutes. Don't forget travel time to the boat ramp from the house either So for me it was start hooking trailer to van at 6am and get stuff loaded. Then a 45 minute trip to the ramp. you got there at 8am and left the dock at 9am sailed and played on the water for 7 or 8 hours. Got back to the dock at 5pm and then broke down the boat and left ramp to go home at about 5:45 pm. Arrived home at 6:30 or so and then had to unpack... It was a long long day. Fun day but eventually it got to where we dreaded all the work it was to put the boat in and out of the water. What did work with that boat was doing a long weekend where we would put in on a Thursday or Friday and not come back till Sunday or Monday. For casual trailer sailoring I think I would now get a 16 or 17 footer to make that setup and breakdown even easier. Our next boat was a Beneteau F235. It also had a trailer but at about 3500 lbs with a wing keel and 2'9" draft and back swept spreaders it is much harder to setup and take down if sailing off a trailer.. Realistically about 2 to 3 hours at the ramp putting the rig up and getting stuff setup. and about the same breaking her down. We did not sail her off the trailer but got her a slip.. It cost me about 3 grand a year to keep her in a slip.. But we had an increadable amount of fun on that boat. I used her as an apartment at the beach even when not sailing her. We could just jump on her and in about 20 minutes pull out from the dock for a days sailing or take her out for a couple hours on the water if we just wanted a small trip. I probably averaged sailing a couple days a week year round. As opposed to the once every other week to once a month that we ended up sailing the shock santana. The beneteau was a much more substantial boat than the shock santana with 5'7" head room and a huge vberth and a small aft cabin. Head and Galley as well as a small salon that would seat 4 comfortably or 6 squished in around the table. I'm still not shure how those frenchys designed all that into that small a space but it was increadable. When we moved up to our DE38 19,000 lbs displacement boat I just about cried when I pulled the Beneteau out of the water. She was a great boat. However using her that much and being the the fixer upper and upgrader that I am, between using her, dock fees and upgrades and repairs I probably realistically paid about 5000 dollars a year to use her. with a little more than half of that in dock fees. about a grand a year in the cost of misc stuff and consumables such as fuel and food and then about 1000 a year in upgrades and maintenance. I think once we leave the dock on our 38 foot boat that it will cost less to maintain her than what we paid for maintenance and dock fees for the 23 foot boat. We paid a lot more for the 23ft boat but it also got us a lot more usage. I think if I were living at home and wanted to sail alot that is a good way to go. If I just wanted to sail a few long weekends a year then I would keep her on the trailor instead of at the dock. Another way of going is to just join one of the boat clubs where you pay a annual fee and have usage of different sailboats or just go down and do a daily or weekend rental and pay a few hundred dollars when you want to go sailing. 5000 dollars spent as rental is about a months worth of sailing.. I was only averaging about 6 to 8 days a month on the water at the most active in the above scenarios. So figure even owning the boat and not including the initial cost of the boat I was paying about 52 to 80 dollars per actual day on the water to go sailing with the beneteau. Just some actual numbers... also my numbers for my area are low because I had a fairly cheap slip by local prices and I also did 100% of the labor on my boat myself as well as scrounging great deals on all the equipment and upgrades I did. Scott > A friend of mine has a 24' clone of a Volksboat -- also solid hull, tough little boat. He has set up a windvane and everything. His is a inboard engine, and is not trailerable at all. It is a lot more work. He has to have a yard, a keelboat berth, and pay winter storage. His costs are at least $3,500 a year. > > There is a huge difference between a keelboat, even a small one and a trailer-launchable boat with a smaller, swing or combination keel > > I strongly recommend a 20 - 25 ' trailerable. To try it out weekend / week-long sailing trips. > > I also have a 16' trailerable. Sleeping in it is more like tenting, but it is an order of magnitude easier again over a 23' boat, but one has to be very careful because 20 - 30 knot blustery weather and being over-sailed is a recipe for swimming. If one likes swimming, then get a Laser, and give up any idea of sleeping on it at all. > > Matt > | 25034|25015|2011-01-25 13:50:50|wild_explorer|Re: Banned ,two more times|To be fair, I have to agree with a statement below as well. Professional boat builders MUST follow industry standards and rules. DIY builder can get away with many things in some countries, but professional/licensed builder does not have such luxury. However, if something does not violate the rules/standards, its allowable. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > Just because something is simple does not mean it the best way or the only > way > to do it. > Minumum scantling rules are there for a reason, you can follow them or not > on your own > boat, If you choose not does not mean they are stupid and out dated and if I > or anyone else decides to follow them does not make us stupid. | 25035|25015|2011-01-25 15:09:09|brentswain38|Re: Banned ,two more times|I didn't say that on any of those sites, just pointed out that what has worked well for 30 years has been proven far beyond any calculation could ever disprove. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > I didn't know you got banned there Brent, your still on the list > Building boats is just like building anything else several ways to go about > it . > Just because something is simple does not mean it the best way or the only > way > to do it. > Minumum scantling rules are there for a reason, you can follow them or not > on your own > boat, If you choose not does not mean they are stupid and out dated and if I > or anyone else decides to follow them does not make us stupid. > If I pick a design that is framed using 1/8" skins that has a hull shape > that I like that follows the minimum scantlings and actualy comes out a bit > lighter than framless. Does this mean I > am stupid? > You would not get banned if you didn't use the Brent Swain way or the > highway approach with the little remarks that you throw in that in a round > about way mean that we are stupid for > not following your way. > Nuff said > Tom > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:14 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > I just got baned form two more sites for telling people of simpler and less > > expensive ways of doing things, from Metalboatsociety.org and > > metalboatbuilding.org . The straw that broke the camels back was me > > suggesting that a simple ss pipe nipple welded in was all that was needed > > for thru hulls, instead of a complex arrangement of mild steel pipes, bolts > > and flanges. > > I was told that I was not allowed to disagree with anyone , but anyone > > else on the site is allowed to disagree with me. If two people disagree with > > one another, I'm only allowed to agree with both of them. > > There appears to be a concerted effort to throw as many disinformation > > hurdles as possible in front of people attempting to do their own work, to > > try and make commercial operations more relevant . I've been told that > > designers are hurting for lack of business, and wherever they go they see > > far more of my designs than their own. I've been told that when my clients > > go to a commercial rigger, and are asked what they are building, they say "A > > Brent Swain design." They respond with " Another one of those assholes, who > > build all their own gear, and buy nothing." So they resort to censorship, an > > admission that their arguments cant stand the test of an open debate. > > They are trying to censor out any information that there is any > > alternative but the expensive solutions they are trying to sell . > > I would appreciate it if some of you ( the more the better ) would go to > > those sites and post the warning > > "Anyone caught disagreeing with any of these posts will be banned. We > > are her to promote orthodoxy, not to advance boat building." > > Thanks . > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > 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] > | 25036|25015|2011-01-25 18:57:49|brentswain38|Re: Banned ,two more times|Tom When I asked you why you were not using origami for your next boat, you told me "Because I like doing metal work. The more work the more fun." or words to that effect. I've only had one other client who said he was disappointed when all the metal work was finished, as he was enjoying it so much. Given my experience of the last 35 years of helping people get their metal boats together, most simply want to get out cruising , as quickly and painlessly as possible. That is what my building methods are all aimed at, not for fun and games for those who love metal work, and who would rather be building than sailing. On another site I was told that none of my boats exist, they are all a figment of my imagination. I was simultaneously called a scammer and criticized for not charging enough. It has been suggested that I have a structural analysis done by someone who stated that shape has no effect on strength, who said that a piece of mylar held in the hands and bent , behaves the same structurally, as a longitudinal welded inside a hull. Neither Tom nor anyone else challenged this statement. When I suggested that a round or oval mast is far stronger than a flat piece of plate made of the same material I was told "Prove it", something Tom never challenged. My statements of fact, which disprove such comments, are frequently deleted. I understand Tom is building a 37 footer using the framed method. I have asked him to keep me posted on how far along he is and the number of hours involved. No response. I have suggested that 30 years of offshore cruising in some of the most extreme conditions is a far more relevant than any amount of calculations on any untried boats . Dudley Dix agreed. After that and his praising Ganley designs , he got so much hate mail he quit that chatline and has never gone back. When I mentioned one of my 36 footers spending 16 days pounding on a Baja lee shore in 8 to 12 fit surf and being winched off thu the same surf ,being picked up and dropped every wave for the first quarter mile ,with no serious structural damage , I was called a liar. When the friend who sailed her back to BC right after that incident confirmed it , he too was called a liar. When he posted pictures of the incident, he started receiving weird and threatening emails over it. Calculations are like tomorrows weather forecast. 30 years experience in sometimes extreme conditions is like yesterdays weather record. Which is more reliable? It has been suggested than my non bureaucrat approved boats , which have withstood 16 days of pounding in heavy surf, a collision with a freighter, T boning a steel barge at hull speed, pounding across 300 yards of Fijian coral reef ,a single season passage thru the NW passage, and 30 years of offshore cruising in all conditions,without a single structural failure of any kind at sea, are not strong enough, but a bureaucrat approved fibreglass or wooden boat, which would break up in minutes in the same conditions is strong enough because it is bureaucrat approved. It's been suggested that boats which have cruised 30 years without a single structural failure at sea, may have structural failures in the first four hours , if it is not bureaucrat approved. On another site it was suggested by a guy claiming to be an engineer that math is critical while demonstrating an inability to count to 14. He is still there. It was suggested that I get my advice from him. These are the arguments that Tom has been supporting ,or certainly not questioning. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I didn't say that on any of those sites, just pointed out that what has worked well for 30 years has been proven far beyond any calculation could ever disprove. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > > > I didn't know you got banned there Brent, your still on the list > > Building boats is just like building anything else several ways to go about > > it . > > Just because something is simple does not mean it the best way or the only > > way > > to do it. > > Minumum scantling rules are there for a reason, you can follow them or not > > on your own > > boat, If you choose not does not mean they are stupid and out dated and if I > > or anyone else decides to follow them does not make us stupid. > > If I pick a design that is framed using 1/8" skins that has a hull shape > > that I like that follows the minimum scantlings and actualy comes out a bit > > lighter than framless. Does this mean I > > am stupid? > > You would not get banned if you didn't use the Brent Swain way or the > > highway approach with the little remarks that you throw in that in a round > > about way mean that we are stupid for > > not following your way. > > Nuff said > > Tom > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:14 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > I just got baned form two more sites for telling people of simpler and less > > > expensive ways of doing things, from Metalboatsociety.org and > > > metalboatbuilding.org . The straw that broke the camels back was me > > > suggesting that a simple ss pipe nipple welded in was all that was needed > > > for thru hulls, instead of a complex arrangement of mild steel pipes, bolts > > > and flanges. > > > I was told that I was not allowed to disagree with anyone , but anyone > > > else on the site is allowed to disagree with me. If two people disagree with > > > one another, I'm only allowed to agree with both of them. > > > There appears to be a concerted effort to throw as many disinformation > > > hurdles as possible in front of people attempting to do their own work, to > > > try and make commercial operations more relevant . I've been told that > > > designers are hurting for lack of business, and wherever they go they see > > > far more of my designs than their own. I've been told that when my clients > > > go to a commercial rigger, and are asked what they are building, they say "A > > > Brent Swain design." They respond with " Another one of those assholes, who > > > build all their own gear, and buy nothing." So they resort to censorship, an > > > admission that their arguments cant stand the test of an open debate. > > > They are trying to censor out any information that there is any > > > alternative but the expensive solutions they are trying to sell . > > > I would appreciate it if some of you ( the more the better ) would go to > > > those sites and post the warning > > > "Anyone caught disagreeing with any of these posts will be banned. We > > > are her to promote orthodoxy, not to advance boat building." > > > Thanks . > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > 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] > > > | 25037|24849|2011-01-25 19:22:16|brentswain38|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|I don't see the container serving any useful function. Just build the boat and go cruising. Keep it simple. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > OK, Matt. It could be useful to discuss this hypothetical project. Let say 20ft and 40ft boat-container-carrier. I already have 3D model, so I could play another day > with it and provide some numbers. It might give people an idea what is involved to build a boat. I am still trying to figure it out by myself. And I am not boat designer - be easy on me. > > What might be interesting for the group: > > - materials needed for both models (steel, paint, etc) - directly related to the cost. > - load capacity > - preliminary estimate for sea worthiness > - pro, cons for both models > - what else??? > > I can see several reasons why private containers moving is not so popular: > > -I have a coworker who got a quote for shipping 20ft and 40ft container by ocean freighter (plus 2 weeks for load/unload it). The difference was about $400 (from Northern California to Costa Rica). And it was about $2000 > - loading/unloading. In some places it would be hard to do, unless you can unload container by yourself from boat to dock or land. > - not so many people will agree to expedite its own container (travel with you - less responsibility for you) > > This "container" idea popped-up when I was looking how to reinforce hull's shell and thinking about survivability of the boat. Side to side load/stress of the hull could be transferred through container frame. If container watertight - it might be a reason to use it as watertight compartment, If not - does not make any sense (need to make watertight cargo bay at that case). Container will need some holding frame in the hull anyway - acts as reinforcement for the hull. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yser easoneahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > The purpose would be to carry an actual 20' shipping container, i.e., a small boat capable of carrying containerized commercial cargo to a small port, far from a proper container port, say a place with no roads leading to it. Like mountainous island areas. The space on either side, below and above would be used. Tankage comes to mind below and to the sides. Above would be a crawlway, build into the deck hatches, that would add stiffness to the hatches and allow crew movement from the front to the back in poor conditions. > > > > Yes, maybe not an altogether practical idea, but I did say "toy with the idea", generally an indication I found it impractical at all times. Besides, how much money could possibly be made transporting legal cargo in such small quantities ? Would it be sustaining ? Would it help the cruising budget at all ? The hassle and headache of commercial insurance etc. There has to be a reason why it is not done. > > > > Matt > | 25038|25015|2011-01-25 19:41:33|brentswain38|Re: Banned ,two more times|When you seek advice on getting off the treadmill it makes sense to not go to those who have never accomplished that , especially those who's stated objective is to throw roadblocks in your way, and try convince you that the only way to go is the most expensive and time consuming way available. It appears that many have already got this message . Those sites have lately gone days and sometimes weeks without a single new post, while this more open minded and progressive site has been hopping with activity, from some of the most practical and experienced people anywhere ,from a wide field of hands on expertise. I believe those sites will die within a year or two, from such a lack of interest . If people want a super expensive "West Marine " solution , they will simply go to West Marine , with the necessary wheelbarrow full of cash. They will remain on the treadmill paying for it, while the more practical will have gone cruising years earlier.. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Tom > When I asked you why you were not using origami for your next boat, you told me "Because I like doing metal work. The more work the more fun." or words to that effect. > I've only had one other client who said he was disappointed when all the metal work was finished, as he was enjoying it so much. > Given my experience of the last 35 years of helping people get their metal boats together, most simply want to get out cruising , as quickly and painlessly as possible. That is what my building methods are all aimed at, not for fun and games for those who love metal work, and who would rather be building than sailing. > On another site I was told that none of my boats exist, they are all a figment of my imagination. I was simultaneously called a scammer and criticized for not charging enough. It has been suggested that I have a structural analysis done by someone who stated that shape has no effect on strength, who said that a piece of mylar held in the hands and bent , behaves the same structurally, as a longitudinal welded inside a hull. Neither Tom nor anyone else challenged this statement. When I suggested that a round or oval mast is far stronger than a flat piece of plate made of the same material I was told "Prove it", something Tom never challenged. My statements of fact, which disprove such comments, are frequently deleted. > I understand Tom is building a 37 footer using the framed method. I have asked him to keep me posted on how far along he is and the number of hours involved. No response. > I have suggested that 30 years of offshore cruising in some of the most extreme conditions is a far more relevant than any amount of calculations on any untried boats . Dudley Dix agreed. After that and his praising Ganley designs , he got so much hate mail he quit that chatline and has never gone back. When I mentioned one of my 36 footers spending 16 days pounding on a Baja lee shore in 8 to 12 fit surf and being winched off thu the same surf ,being picked up and dropped every wave for the first quarter mile ,with no serious structural damage , I was called a liar. When the friend who sailed her back to BC right after that incident confirmed it , he too was called a liar. When he posted pictures of the incident, he started receiving weird and threatening emails over it. > Calculations are like tomorrows weather forecast. 30 years experience in sometimes extreme conditions is like yesterdays weather record. Which is more reliable? > It has been suggested than my non bureaucrat approved boats , which have withstood 16 days of pounding in heavy surf, a collision with a freighter, T boning a steel barge at hull speed, pounding across 300 yards of Fijian coral reef ,a single season passage thru the NW passage, and 30 years of offshore cruising in all conditions,without a single structural failure of any kind at sea, are not strong enough, but a bureaucrat approved fibreglass or wooden boat, which would break up in minutes in the same conditions is strong enough because it is bureaucrat approved. > It's been suggested that boats which have cruised 30 years without a single structural failure at sea, may have structural failures in the first four hours , if it is not bureaucrat approved. > On another site it was suggested by a guy claiming to be an engineer that math is critical while demonstrating an inability to count to 14. He is still there. It was suggested that I get my advice from him. > These are the arguments that Tom has been supporting ,or certainly not questioning. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I didn't say that on any of those sites, just pointed out that what has worked well for 30 years has been proven far beyond any calculation could ever disprove. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > > > > > I didn't know you got banned there Brent, your still on the list > > > Building boats is just like building anything else several ways to go about > > > it . > > > Just because something is simple does not mean it the best way or the only > > > way > > > to do it. > > > Minumum scantling rules are there for a reason, you can follow them or not > > > on your own > > > boat, If you choose not does not mean they are stupid and out dated and if I > > > or anyone else decides to follow them does not make us stupid. > > > If I pick a design that is framed using 1/8" skins that has a hull shape > > > that I like that follows the minimum scantlings and actualy comes out a bit > > > lighter than framless. Does this mean I > > > am stupid? > > > You would not get banned if you didn't use the Brent Swain way or the > > > highway approach with the little remarks that you throw in that in a round > > > about way mean that we are stupid for > > > not following your way. > > > Nuff said > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:14 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > > > I just got baned form two more sites for telling people of simpler and less > > > > expensive ways of doing things, from Metalboatsociety.org and > > > > metalboatbuilding.org . The straw that broke the camels back was me > > > > suggesting that a simple ss pipe nipple welded in was all that was needed > > > > for thru hulls, instead of a complex arrangement of mild steel pipes, bolts > > > > and flanges. > > > > I was told that I was not allowed to disagree with anyone , but anyone > > > > else on the site is allowed to disagree with me. If two people disagree with > > > > one another, I'm only allowed to agree with both of them. > > > > There appears to be a concerted effort to throw as many disinformation > > > > hurdles as possible in front of people attempting to do their own work, to > > > > try and make commercial operations more relevant . I've been told that > > > > designers are hurting for lack of business, and wherever they go they see > > > > far more of my designs than their own. I've been told that when my clients > > > > go to a commercial rigger, and are asked what they are building, they say "A > > > > Brent Swain design." They respond with " Another one of those assholes, who > > > > build all their own gear, and buy nothing." So they resort to censorship, an > > > > admission that their arguments cant stand the test of an open debate. > > > > They are trying to censor out any information that there is any > > > > alternative but the expensive solutions they are trying to sell . > > > > I would appreciate it if some of you ( the more the better ) would go to > > > > those sites and post the warning > > > > "Anyone caught disagreeing with any of these posts will be banned. We > > > > are her to promote orthodoxy, not to advance boat building." > > > > Thanks . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > | 25039|25015|2011-01-25 20:52:03|wild_explorer|Re: Banned ,two more times|Brent, by my opinion, it would be waste of time trying to convince professional boat builders to follow your ideas. Customer-oriented designer (not deep-pocket-oriented) has better chance to pick-up your ideas. But not commercial boat builder. I see several reasons for that: - Many (not all) small boat-builders want "to milk the COW (client)" - Big Reputable boat builder will "play safe" and follow all recommendations (even if it is JUST recommendations). They will use your type of logic: "If it worked for 100th of years - it tested for 100th of years" ;)) And, as you said, they need to go trough bureaucratic machine as well. - Attitude "Car Mechanics hate unbreakable cars" Hey! But you have US (members) - who wants to do things more simple and efficient. All your advices are greatly appreciated in this group. P.S. This is one of few groups I still read.| 25040|25015|2011-01-25 21:04:05|brentswain38|Re: Banned ,two more times|I believe it is their frustration at seeing so many unmilked customers happily cruising around in good boats, with cruising funds left over, which motivates their anger, and calls for me being banned, and my posts being censored. They don't want anyone to know there are more affordable, and often better alternatives. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Brent, by my opinion, it would be waste of time trying to convince professional boat builders to follow your ideas. > > Customer-oriented designer (not deep-pocket-oriented) has better chance to pick-up your ideas. But not commercial boat builder. I see several reasons for that: > > - Many (not all) small boat-builders want "to milk the COW (client)" > - Big Reputable boat builder will "play safe" and follow all recommendations (even if it is JUST recommendations). They will use your type of logic: "If it worked for 100th of years - it tested for 100th of years" ;)) And, as you said, they need to go trough bureaucratic machine as well. > - Attitude "Car Mechanics hate unbreakable cars" > > Hey! But you have US (members) - who wants to do things more simple and efficient. All your advices are greatly appreciated in this group. > > P.S. This is one of few groups I still read. > | 25041|25015|2011-01-25 21:40:32|Ben Okopnik|Re: Banned ,two more times|On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 01:51:53AM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > Brent, by my opinion, it would be waste of time trying to convince professional boat builders to follow your ideas. > > Customer-oriented designer (not deep-pocket-oriented) has better chance to pick-up your ideas. But not commercial boat builder. I see several reasons for that: > > - Many (not all) small boat-builders want "to milk the COW (client)" > - Big Reputable boat builder will "play safe" and follow all recommendations (even if it is JUST recommendations). They will use your type of logic: "If it worked for 100th of years - it tested for 100th of years" ;)) And, as you said, they need to go trough bureaucratic machine as well. > - Attitude "Car Mechanics hate unbreakable cars" > > Hey! But you have US (members) - who wants to do things more simple and efficient. All your advices are greatly appreciated in this group. > > P.S. This is one of few groups I still read. Seconded. I've subscribed to several other boat sites, and have let those subscriptions lapse, or just not bothered to participate: I found out, after just a short while, that those people have nothing to say that I need to hear. "We're doing it the standard way because nobody ever got sued doing it the standard way" is "reasoning" that I find infuriatingly idiotic; I'll take one Brent Swain over a thousand so-called "designers" who do nothing more than repaint the gargoyles on the same old church. Brent - on this site and elsewhere, you've got passionate people who believe and trust in what you're doing and talking about. Don't worry about the fools, or the cowards, or those who simply don't understand; consider yourself lucky that your work is recognized and valued while you're still alive. Most of the geniuses in history didn't get recognized until they were dead; this makes me grit my teeth and nearly despair of the human race. But once in a while, some ideas shine so bright, and have so much power and immediacy, that they actually break through the average Joe's cynicism and apathy, and actually get used while the "crazy man" who proposed them is still around. Yours do; they even enjoy enough popularity that you can make a bit of a living off them. That speaks volumes, regardless of what anyone might say on any damned forum. 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| 25042|25015|2011-01-25 21:48:34|Tom Mann|Re: Banned ,two more times|Well not much to say there Brent I'm not going to get in a pissin match with you. But you did just make my point about talking to us like were stupid. Tom On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:57 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > Tom > When I asked you why you were not using origami for your next boat, you > told me "Because I like doing metal work. The more work the more fun." or > words to that effect. > I've only had one other client who said he was disappointed when all the > metal work was finished, as he was enjoying it so much. > Given my experience of the last 35 years of helping people get their metal > boats together, most simply want to get out cruising , as quickly and > painlessly as possible. That is what my building methods are all aimed at, > not for fun and games for those who love metal work, and who would rather > be building than sailing. > On another site I was told that none of my boats exist, they are all a > figment of my imagination. I was simultaneously called a scammer and > criticized for not charging enough. It has been suggested that I have a > structural analysis done by someone who stated that shape has no effect on > strength, who said that a piece of mylar held in the hands and bent , > behaves the same structurally, as a longitudinal welded inside a hull. > Neither Tom nor anyone else challenged this statement. When I suggested > that a round or oval mast is far stronger than a flat piece of plate made > of the same material I was told "Prove it", something Tom never challenged. > My statements of fact, which disprove such comments, are frequently deleted. > I understand Tom is building a 37 footer using the framed method. I have > asked him to keep me posted on how far along he is and the number of hours > involved. No response. > I have suggested that 30 years of offshore cruising in some of the most > extreme conditions is a far more relevant than any amount of calculations > on any untried boats . Dudley Dix agreed. After that and his praising > Ganley designs , he got so much hate mail he quit that chatline and has > never gone back. When I mentioned one of my 36 footers spending 16 days > pounding on a Baja lee shore in 8 to 12 fit surf and being winched off thu > the same surf ,being picked up and dropped every wave for the first quarter > mile ,with no serious structural damage , I was called a liar. When the > friend who sailed her back to BC right after that incident confirmed it , > he too was called a liar. When he posted pictures of the incident, he > started receiving weird and threatening emails over it. > Calculations are like tomorrows weather forecast. 30 years experience in > sometimes extreme conditions is like yesterdays weather record. Which is > more reliable? > It has been suggested than my non bureaucrat approved boats , which have > withstood 16 days of pounding in heavy surf, a collision with a freighter, T > boning a steel barge at hull speed, pounding across 300 yards of Fijian > coral reef ,a single season passage thru the NW passage, and 30 years of > offshore cruising in all conditions,without a single structural failure of > any kind at sea, are not strong enough, but a bureaucrat approved fibreglass > or wooden boat, which would break up in minutes in the same conditions is > strong enough because it is bureaucrat approved. > It's been suggested that boats which have cruised 30 years without a single > structural failure at sea, may have structural failures in the first four > hours , if it is not bureaucrat approved. > On another site it was suggested by a guy claiming to be an engineer that > math is critical while demonstrating an inability to count to 14. He is > still there. It was suggested that I get my advice from him. > These are the arguments that Tom has been supporting ,or certainly not > questioning. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" > wrote: > > > > I didn't say that on any of those sites, just pointed out that what has > worked well for 30 years has been proven far beyond any calculation could > ever disprove. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > > > > > I didn't know you got banned there Brent, your still on the list > > > Building boats is just like building anything else several ways to go > about > > > it . > > > Just because something is simple does not mean it the best way or the > only > > > way > > > to do it. > > > Minumum scantling rules are there for a reason, you can follow them > or not > > > on your own > > > boat, If you choose not does not mean they are stupid and out dated and > if I > > > or anyone else decides to follow them does not make us stupid. > > > If I pick a design that is framed using 1/8" skins that has a hull > shape > > > that I like that follows the minimum scantlings and actualy comes out a > bit > > > lighter than framless. Does this mean I > > > am stupid? > > > You would not get banned if you didn't use the Brent Swain way or the > > > highway approach with the little remarks that you throw in that in a > round > > > about way mean that we are stupid for > > > not following your way. > > > Nuff said > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:14 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > > > I just got baned form two more sites for telling people of simpler > and less > > > > expensive ways of doing things, from Metalboatsociety.org and > > > > metalboatbuilding.org . The straw that broke the camels back was me > > > > suggesting that a simple ss pipe nipple welded in was all that was > needed > > > > for thru hulls, instead of a complex arrangement of mild steel pipes, > bolts > > > > and flanges. > > > > I was told that I was not allowed to disagree with anyone , but > anyone > > > > else on the site is allowed to disagree with me. If two people > disagree with > > > > one another, I'm only allowed to agree with both of them. > > > > There appears to be a concerted effort to throw as many > disinformation > > > > hurdles as possible in front of people attempting to do their own > work, to > > > > try and make commercial operations more relevant . I've been told > that > > > > designers are hurting for lack of business, and wherever they go > they see > > > > far more of my designs than their own. I've been told that when my > clients > > > > go to a commercial rigger, and are asked what they are building, they > say "A > > > > Brent Swain design." They respond with " Another one of those > assholes, who > > > > build all their own gear, and buy nothing." So they resort to > censorship, an > > > > admission that their arguments cant stand the test of an open > debate. > > > > They are trying to censor out any information that there is any > > > > alternative but the expensive solutions they are trying to sell . > > > > I would appreciate it if some of you ( the more the better ) would go > to > > > > those sites and post the warning > > > > "Anyone caught disagreeing with any of these posts will be > banned. We > > > > are her to promote orthodoxy, not to advance boat building." > > > > Thanks . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > 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@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25043|24849|2011-01-25 23:20:54|wild_explorer|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|I can see several reasons "for" using a container. The main question: "Is Ocean Dry Shipping Container actually watertight"???. I saw several reports about lost at sea and recovered floating containers, but usually it was loaded with some "floating type" cargo. If it is not watertight, it defeats all possible advantages of using it. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I don't see the container serving any useful function. Just build the boat and go cruising. Keep it simple. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > OK, Matt. It could be useful to discuss this hypothetical project. Let say 20ft and 40ft boat-container-carrier. I already have 3D model, so I could play another day > > with it and provide some numbers. It might give people an idea what is involved to build a boat. I am still trying to figure it out by myself. And I am not boat designer - be easy on me. > > | 25044|25015|2011-01-25 23:24:58|wild_explorer|Re: Banned ,two more times|You got my respect for this one. Well... If you do something different, it is up to you - whatever makes person happy. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > Well not much to say there Brent I'm not going to get in a pissin match > with you. ... skipped .... > > Tom | 25045|25015|2011-01-26 00:15:53|Matt Malone|Re: Banned ,two more times|Humm, how to describe this... I am an engineer. I have a darn good idea how hard it is to calculate stresses in the Brent designs. I recall doing 10-20 pages of partial differential calculus for shell shapes that are differentiable, meaning, no discontinuities of slope anywhere. Then we did simple, static loadings, like distributed pressures, self-weights. Anything discontinuous causes almost certainly unsolvable equations. My prof told me about his graduate exam where he had to analyze a silo design -- with nothing but a slide rule. Now we have finite element analysis, and I know a bit about that too, having done my masters thesis on shells, and complex, time-varying loadings. I used a Cray supercomputer for that stuff. Sure modern computers are a lot better, but, that does not make it any easier. I was only using 20 elements, in a 4-fold symmetry and it took 4 hours to run I think it was 200ms of simulation, on a Cray-YMP/22. On a boat, there is no symmetry, once one includes asymmetric waves, and heeling. Even 200 elements would not be many, and less than 10 seconds would be insufficient, and the number of cases that would have to be run, even if only 50 cases, that would be .... 10 million times the computational time ? And 50 cases would handle nothing really. So, there are engineers who take very seriously their responsibility to keep people safe, that things not fail, that they not be wrong, because if any of those things happen, people die. As a small detail they do not get to do it anymore, and people call them bad names, like negligent and incompetent. Yes, math and carefully controlled testing are a religion to them, what they use to define and quantify safe. The idea of a human experiment involving unnecessarily uncontrolled unknowns, where the negative outcome is drowning, is just not acceptable. It cannot ever be, because, if one engineer did it, sooner or later, a truly incompetent, negligent or indifferent engineer would and would start killing people by the dozens or hundreds. The community of engineers will do anything to prevent this, including, being unnecessarily cruel to those who are not engineers. As a professor, I cannot count the number of truly bad, fundamentally flawed, and sometimes dangerous ideas I fielded from the public. I would take hours sometimes explaining thoroughly why it could not work. I recall one where I thought the easiest explanation was to show, if what he was saying was true, I could do this adjustment and it would produce energy from nothing. I would then explain that this is accepted as not possible. Most of them left convinced there was a conspiracy to hold them down. At least one left believing he would solve the energy crisis -- The bunk science on the internet really has not helped this at all. I have also met a few who lied about what they had done. It seemed, as an employee in a public university, I owed a duty to be polite, and try to explain, instead of be dismissive and aloof. And to speak in science-speak would be no use at all. It took the sharpest minds 400 years to come up with it, and a lifetime for me to learn it. I knew they would take it about the same as the nonsensical religious doctrine of a cult without regard for reality. Unfortunately, many engineers will do just that, be dismissive and aloof, and some yes even fear, for themselves. As a group engineers fear that un-analyzed dangerous things might become once again fashionable, like so much other non-scientific thinking these days. Note that engineering was not nearly so analytically-based before 1910 there was a lot more "witch doctoring" and uga-boga math involved, and pretty geometrical patterns applied to shapes that, now in retrospect, were plainly meaningless, and I believe a dog and pony show for the people who contracted the work. And there have been no end of people in the last 100 years since who try to ignore fundamental scientific laws, analysis, prudence, and factors of safety and do things that involve people's safety. So it does not surprise me that Brent has been treated this way. It also does not surprise me that Brent has heard some nonsensical things from engineers -- but that is another story. Now, Brent's version of orgami is really quite brilliant in its combination of advantages -- low expense, easy construction, low complexity etc. And a few designs have been through quite a bit of real-world testing. The argument of the strength and toughness of steel is compelling as a way to overlook the unknowns. However, we cannot expect engineers to overlook unknowns and give up on 100 years of engineering "doctrine". Will I as an engineer describe any of Brent's designs as safe for your family ? I will duck the question, and talk about designs that other people's families have found safe, and that analysis can only go so far etc etc. Because, if I ever said anything was safe, and anyone ever depended on my word, even here in e-mail, and something went wrong, people could drown and I think that is really bad. As a small additional problem, my engineering licence that I have been working towards getting and keeping for 30 years -- I could lose it forever. Yeah those engineer types turn on their own in a second when people die. Not at all like doctors for instance. (Added note, once one has been trained as an engineer, one cannot do what Brent is doing, by law, without getting a licence. Someone trained as a natural scientist, or someone who is not scientifically trained must more blatantly run amuck of the professional engineer's associations before they get smacked... not someone trained as an engineer.) Now, can people orgami up a boat in any old way they like, completely new designs, especially ones very different from Brent's (please note Wild) and expected it to work out as well as the few designs that Brent and his customers have used for a long time ? I would say, we all know as much about those new designs as Brent did before he launched his first one -- un-analyzed, unproven. And if it is done often enough, and different enough, eventually, something is not going to work out right. This is why engineers hold so rigorously to analysis, and when analysis is too complex, testing it themselves before making any pronouncement with regard to safety. So to customers of Brent's I say, build it like the others that have worked, build it the way Brent showed you because, that design at least has years of testing. And to Brent I say, maybe it is time to try for certification as a shell without scantlings. I do not know if that is possible, but engineers and government agencies like tests. If an extra hull is not that hard to fold up, then make one, and try to get it certified -- invite them to test it to destruction. Maybe get a university involved -- Memorial in Newfoundland maybe. Engineering grad students need projects so they can get their masters thesis. They will want to cover it (likely the inside) with strain gauges and abuse it. Professors have little money, really. If you give them a bare hull, and it results in an engineering report from someone with a PhD, and lots of photographs from various projects and tests, then it might be easier to get one design certified. Once one design is certified, you have created the path by which very similar designs would get certified, with some testing. Does Brent need this ? No, not really. But, it sure did not hurt Ted Rogers Senior when he dropped out of university in second year, designed a radio station that did not require batteries, and got a licence to run it from the government -- CFRB (Rogers Batteriless). Swain Frameless Scantlings Standards.... Has a nice ring to it. Or Brent could just keep helping people make a few designs that have proven themselves in many years of service. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 02:04:05 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Banned ,two more times I believe it is their frustration at seeing so many unmilked customers happily cruising around in good boats, with cruising funds left over, which motivates their anger, and calls for me being banned, and my posts being censored. They don't want anyone to know there are more affordable, and often better alternatives. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Brent, by my opinion, it would be waste of time trying to convince professional boat builders to follow your ideas. > > Customer-oriented designer (not deep-pocket-oriented) has better chance to pick-up your ideas. But not commercial boat builder. I see several reasons for that: > > - Many (not all) small boat-builders want "to milk the COW (client)" > - Big Reputable boat builder will "play safe" and follow all recommendations (even if it is JUST recommendations). They will use your type of logic: "If it worked for 100th of years - it tested for 100th of years" ;)) And, as you said, they need to go trough bureaucratic machine as well. > - Attitude "Car Mechanics hate unbreakable cars" > > Hey! But you have US (members) - who wants to do things more simple and efficient. All your advices are greatly appreciated in this group. > > P.S. This is one of few groups I still read. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25046|24849|2011-01-26 00:32:58|Matt Malone|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Shipping containers are not water tight and are designed to sink reasonably slowly. Again, note that the floor is usually marine plywood, not steel. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:20:43 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? I can see several reasons "for" using a container. The main question: "Is Ocean Dry Shipping Container actually watertight"???. I saw several reports about lost at sea and recovered floating containers, but usually it was loaded with some "floating type" cargo. If it is not watertight, it defeats all possible advantages of using it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25047|25015|2011-01-26 00:35:19|wild_explorer|Re: Banned ,two more times|Excellent post Matt! Thanks!!!! --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Humm, how to describe this... I am an engineer. I have a darn good idea how hard it is to calculate stresses in the Brent designs. I recall doing 10-20 pages of partial differential | 25048|24849|2011-01-26 01:23:28|David Frantz|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|I haven't seen every possible shipping container but I'd be very surprised if any where completely water tight. They may be designed to keep out water or the elements but I hardly think they would keep out the sea for long. In any event if you want water tight compartments why not design them into you boat? From the standpoint of safety they ought to slow a sinking. I say slow because I'm not convinced that a water tight compartment will stay that way for ever. Just consider how a door from one compartment to another would have to be built. It needs to have a bit more than a Quickset dead bolt to seal it up. David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. On Jan 25, 2011, at 11:20 PM, wild_explorer wrote: > I can see several reasons "for" using a container. The main question: "Is Ocean Dry Shipping Container actually watertight"???. I saw several reports about lost at sea and recovered floating containers, but usually it was loaded with some "floating type" cargo. If it is not watertight, it defeats all possible advantages of using it. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >> >> I don't see the container serving any useful function. Just build the boat and go cruising. Keep it simple. >> >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: >>> >>> OK, Matt. It could be useful to discuss this hypothetical project. Let say 20ft and 40ft boat-container-carrier. I already have 3D model, so I could play another day >>> with it and provide some numbers. It might give people an idea what is involved to build a boat. I am still trying to figure it out by myself. And I am not boat designer - be easy on me. >>> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 25049|25015|2011-01-26 02:23:20|David Frantz|Re: Banned ,two more times|Hi Matt; The problem with Engineering Societies and professional licensing is that they believe their own dogma and forget the reality that we are all human. Thus when a bridge falls down or a building topples over it is by definition and engineering failure. This is BS as it is often the making of very simple mistakes that bring these things down. Human factors in other words which isn't an issue of Engineering. This brings up the question in my mind as to why the judgement of safety is often left to one firm for large scale projects where safety is a concern. In the end there is no way an engineer can sign off on a project of any size and be 100% confident that safety is properly built in. Modern computers don't help anymore either as now you have to trust that the code is correct and that nothing un acceptable happened while all those calculations took place. This is an issue I find especially bothersome because of the push in various states to license other professions such as software engineering. A good structural engineer may be able to design a structure with a very high probability of structural safety but I'm willing to say it is near impossible for a software engineer project. If they can't do safe software in the aerospace industry, with all the energy time and effort they put into their projects, I'm not sure how it can ever be accomplished on a lesser scale. In any event the problem I have with the Engineering mind set is simy this. If you believe a design is unsafe then prove it with the tools you have available. If you can't then shut up. Or better yet do some research that adds to our pool of knowledge. Frankly I think these guys like to hide behind their regulations just to feel safe. The funny thing is there is not a year that goes by that I don't read about several types of boats sinking. It may be a research ship in the artic, or a pleasure boat hit by a whale or some drunk out on the great lakes. The thing is they end up on the bottom scantlings in spec or not. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against building things in a safe manner. But this mentality that says that if you don't do it our way, you are going to be drummed out of the club or threatened via legal action is pathetic. Mainly because it stifles innovation. Frankly nothing new has been designed for commercial use in years. Most ships, boats or whatever seem to be thrown together out of plans that have been around for a century or more. The last thing we need is a world where progress is surpressed mainly to keep the old guard in control. The killer here is that Brents designs aren't all that radical and have a lot in common with fiberglass boats. Frankly I would suggest that most commercial fiberglass boats have more safety issues than Brents boats. Some of these boats are hardly suitable for a pond. So why don't these clowns go after the fiberglass builders? Maybe because they belong to a different club. In the end the wolf pack zeros in on the lone sheep. Fortunately this sheep has some claws. To swing this around back to civil engineering, if you walk into any town hall and demanded that a bridge be closed because it is unsafe you would be expected to explain yourself. If it is something obvious no problem. However if it is a guesstimate based on looking at the size of the girders you would rightfully have some explaining to do. David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. On Jan 26, 2011, at 12:15 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > Humm, how to describe this... I am an engineer. I have a darn good idea how hard it is to calculate stresses in the Brent designs. I recall doing 10-20 pages of partial differential calculus for shell shapes that are differentiable, meaning, no discontinuities of slope anywhere. Then we did simple, static loadings, like distributed pressures, self-weights. Anything discontinuous causes almost certainly unsolvable equations. My prof told me about his graduate exam where he had to analyze a silo design -- with nothing but a slide rule. > > Now we have finite element analysis, and I know a bit about that too, having done my masters thesis on shells, and complex, time-varying loadings. I used a Cray supercomputer for that stuff. Sure modern computers are a lot better, but, that does not make it any easier. I was only using 20 elements, in a 4-fold symmetry and it took 4 hours to run I think it was 200ms of simulation, on a Cray-YMP/22. On a boat, there is no symmetry, once one includes asymmetric waves, and heeling. Even 200 elements would not be many, and less than 10 seconds would be insufficient, and the number of cases that would have to be run, even if only 50 cases, that would be .... 10 million times the computational time ? And 50 cases would handle nothing really. > > So, there are engineers who take very seriously their responsibility to keep people safe, that things not fail, that they not be wrong, because if any of those things happen, people die. As a small detail they do not get to do it anymore, and people call them bad names, like negligent and incompetent. Yes, math and carefully controlled testing are a religion to them, what they use to define and quantify safe. The idea of a human experiment involving unnecessarily uncontrolled unknowns, where the negative outcome is drowning, is just not acceptable. It cannot ever be, because, if one engineer did it, sooner or later, a truly incompetent, negligent or indifferent engineer would and would start killing people by the dozens or hundreds. The community of engineers will do anything to prevent this, including, being unnecessarily cruel to those who are not engineers. > > As a professor, I cannot count the number of truly bad, fundamentally flawed, and sometimes dangerous ideas I fielded from the public. I would take hours sometimes explaining thoroughly why it could not work. I recall one where I thought the easiest explanation was to show, if what he was saying was true, I could do this adjustment and it would produce energy from nothing. I would then explain that this is accepted as not possible. Most of them left convinced there was a conspiracy to hold them down. At least one left believing he would solve the energy crisis -- The bunk science on the internet really has not helped this at all. I have also met a few who lied about what they had done. > > It seemed, as an employee in a public university, I owed a duty to be polite, and try to explain, instead of be dismissive and aloof. And to speak in science-speak would be no use at all. It took the sharpest minds 400 years to come up with it, and a lifetime for me to learn it. I knew they would take it about the same as the nonsensical religious doctrine of a cult without regard for reality. Unfortunately, many engineers will do just that, be dismissive and aloof, and some yes even fear, for themselves. As a group engineers fear that un-analyzed dangerous things might become once again fashionable, like so much other non-scientific thinking these days. Note that engineering was not nearly so analytically-based before 1910 there was a lot more "witch doctoring" and uga-boga math involved, and pretty geometrical patterns applied to shapes that, now in retrospect, were plainly meaningless, and I believe a dog and pony show for the people who contracted the work. And there > have been no end of people in the last 100 years since who try to ignore fundamental scientific laws, analysis, prudence, and factors of safety and do things that involve people's safety. So it does not surprise me that Brent has been treated this way. > > It also does not surprise me that Brent has heard some nonsensical things from engineers -- but that is another story. > > Now, Brent's version of orgami is really quite brilliant in its combination of advantages -- low expense, easy construction, low complexity etc. And a few designs have been through quite a bit of real-world testing. The argument of the strength and toughness of steel is compelling as a way to overlook the unknowns. However, we cannot expect engineers to overlook unknowns and give up on 100 years of engineering "doctrine". > > Will I as an engineer describe any of Brent's designs as safe for your family ? I will duck the question, and talk about designs that other people's families have found safe, and that analysis can only go so far etc etc. Because, if I ever said anything was safe, and anyone ever depended on my word, even here in e-mail, and something went wrong, people could drown and I think that is really bad. As a small additional problem, my engineering licence that I have been working towards getting and keeping for 30 years -- I could lose it forever. Yeah those engineer types turn on their own in a second when people die. Not at all like doctors for instance. > > (Added note, once one has been trained as an engineer, one cannot do what Brent is doing, by law, without getting a licence. Someone trained as a natural scientist, or someone who is not scientifically trained must more blatantly run amuck of the professional engineer's associations before they get smacked... not someone trained as an engineer.) > > Now, can people orgami up a boat in any old way they like, completely new designs, especially ones very different from Brent's (please note Wild) and expected it to work out as well as the few designs that Brent and his customers have used for a long time ? I would say, we all know as much about those new designs as Brent did before he launched his first one -- un-analyzed, unproven. And if it is done often enough, and different enough, eventually, something is not going to work out right. This is why engineers hold so rigorously to analysis, and when analysis is too complex, testing it themselves before making any pronouncement with regard to safety. > > So to customers of Brent's I say, build it like the others that have worked, build it the way Brent showed you because, that design at least has years of testing. > > And to Brent I say, maybe it is time to try for certification as a shell without scantlings. I do not know if that is possible, but engineers and government agencies like tests. If an extra hull is not that hard to fold up, then make one, and try to get it certified -- invite them to test it to destruction. Maybe get a university involved -- Memorial in Newfoundland maybe. Engineering grad students need projects so they can get their masters thesis. They will want to cover it (likely the inside) with strain gauges and abuse it. Professors have little money, really. If you give them a bare hull, and it results in an engineering report from someone with a PhD, and lots of photographs from various projects and tests, then it might be easier to get one design certified. Once one design is certified, you have created the path by which very similar designs would get certified, with some testing. > > Does Brent need this ? No, not really. But, it sure did not hurt Ted Rogers Senior when he dropped out of university in second year, designed a radio station that did not require batteries, and got a licence to run it from the government -- CFRB (Rogers Batteriless). Swain Frameless Scantlings Standards.... Has a nice ring to it. Or Brent could just keep helping people make a few designs that have proven themselves in many years of service. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 02:04:05 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Banned ,two more times > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe it is their frustration at seeing so many unmilked customers happily cruising around in good boats, with cruising funds left over, which motivates their anger, and calls for me being banned, and my posts being censored. They don't want anyone to know there are more affordable, and often better alternatives. . > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > >> > >> Brent, by my opinion, it would be waste of time trying to convince professional boat builders to follow your ideas. > >> > >> Customer-oriented designer (not deep-pocket-oriented) has better chance to pick-up your ideas. But not commercial boat builder. I see several reasons for that: > >> > >> - Many (not all) small boat-builders want "to milk the COW (client)" > >> - Big Reputable boat builder will "play safe" and follow all recommendations (even if it is JUST recommendations). They will use your type of logic: "If it worked for 100th of years - it tested for 100th of years" ;)) And, as you said, they need to go trough bureaucratic machine as well. > >> - Attitude "Car Mechanics hate unbreakable cars" > >> > >> Hey! But you have US (members) - who wants to do things more simple and efficient. All your advices are greatly appreciated in this group. > >> > >> P.S. This is one of few groups I still read. > >> > > [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 > > > | 25050|25015|2011-01-26 03:36:42|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Banned ,two more times|I like the chatter, grin ;) Matt´s post re: engineering and other licensing is somewhat simplistic, and engineering and other licenses vary greatly throughout the world. Likewise, comparing an internet post to a certified engineers certificate seems to be over the top. In my experience, the engineering societies are often not geared (forgive the pun) to deliver safe or reliable structures. They are geared to support the engineering society, and this is most emphatically NOT the same thing. I happen to live in a country where this has been taken to an absurd level (Spain), and as a consequence finally some sanity is being asserted (Ley omnibus last year). In Spain, everything is licensed and certified, nothing is well built or well done, and no-one is ever responsible. There is absolutely no real-world personal liability in Spain, as an engineering (marine) professional, nor a lawyer etc. (My wife is a lawyear and in the professional society, both here in Spain and in Finland, licensed to practice in both countries). Here I speak of the actual, real-world situation. Architects and engineers are about the same thing, in Spain (arquitecto tecnico). What happens is that an architect is supposed to be personally responsible ... however the classification society (Collegio de Arquitectos) has a catch-all insurance, and in the case of a failure it is not the architect defending a failed structural design, but the architectural society, and done (and paid for) by the previously mentioned collegio de arquitectos who have lawyers on staff, and these same lawyers are the ones who then determine that the architect is/was not at fault, as society rules were followed. Thus, in the court of first instance the architect escapes, totally, any responsibility. Of course, it is also possible to then re-sue, personally, the collegio de architectos. Quiet apart from the fact that each process, with appeals, takes 8 years and you gotta do the first before the second, there is no effective collections mechanism, unlike most of the rest of the world. Thus, liens, etc. are spectacularly ineffective, and legal tricks like writing things in someone elses name/company/apparent ownership are both common, accepted by the courts, and not de-facto illegal. And of course suing the classification society is going to have a poor likelyhood of success (besides requiring rather deep pockets and the 16 years of time). The other extreme would be germany, where nothing is done poorly. Carftmanship of electricians and plumbers is at a fantastic level, always. This is driven by 2 factors- 1. One, professional training (in germany), and old guild-style thinking and a pride in workmanship. High cost of all work, leading to good wages, and the related ability of craftsmen to invest in the appropriate, excellent, tools and techniques. 2. Personal liability I was told (and believe) that all electricians, engineers etc. are personally liable unless they have done the work to the highest standards. Thus, no-one will do a poor job because 1. the client wont pay for it and does not want it, and 2. you yourself end up paying for failure down the road. I have read a lot of classification societies rules. They generally all have back-out clauses. They say that the scantling must be x, OR another proven method, or demonstrably true method. Likewise, stability calculations are given as either calculations or a controlled-inclination test. Conclusion: I believe that the Brent boats could quite easily be classified, if this was desired, structurally. I doubt that there would be any problem. However, where they would probably have problems is in the fact that as owner-built boats, often done cheaply and with inadequate engineering matrials, they would then fail because they do not have the required, and quite sensible, imo, proper breakers, tinned marine wiring, approved gas-rated hose, approved glazing ie portlights etc. None of the last is Brents fault or responsibility, of course. An owner-builder outfits his boat as he sees fit, and then carries the consequences thereof. I myself suscribe to the school of common sense. When I build something or work with something where someone may die, I will make very sure it wont fail because of my errors. If required, I will get it approved, and insured. I will, at need, work with the classification societies, on an as-needed basis. I have done this with power supplies on PCs (OCTEK, BT-Mikro, Finland, around 1986), approved by the Finnish electrical Safety Institue. and the Shpheremania ramp In Barcelona 2 years back (Amusement Park), approved by the UK ADEPS Amusement Parks Health and safety. And a 35 kW (which is a LOT of power) 3-phase electrical installation for a restaurant, about 2 years back. Approved by "Ingenieria" and FECSA in Barcelona. All are traditional, engineering societies, and all approved inspected what I did, approved it, and signed off on the insurance. I have no personal liability any more in either case, as I have followed the rules. In the Spheremania case, I used a UK classification society for about 1500, as the spanish one would have cost more than 15.000€, and required 2-4 months time and paperwork and using THEIR engineers to inspect it and do the reports, at my cost. The UK society said it does not matter who does the design (me) but how it is done, inspected by them. The very pleasant ex-mine engineer who came to look at it, told me in ten minutes he will approve it, as there is no posssible way it can fail dangerously, or hurt or kill someone if it does. We did some minor additions (fences etc) and that was it. I am quite certain it would be possible to classify Brent boats in Europe. Some minor changes and or calculations and or tests would probably need to be done. After doing a stability test, in a tank (not hard, and not expensive, just dont put the interior in beforehand), I am sure that they could then be sold, licensed, used as passenger vessels whatever is needed or desired. I may do a big 5-axis router to machine 6 m long large wooden logs, soon. I will build it to an engineering standard, using suitable components. These are unlikely to be things like snake-oil safety relays, sold at 200 £ each by snake-oil salesmen similar to marine snake-oil salesmen. Instead, I will use std dual relays, where a failure will cause it to fail open, one way or the other. I will then have it inspected by someone who belongs to a suitable society, and have them sign off on it. The router will probably pay for my boat (It is likely to be about 70-80k€. Grin). Of course a std production line is 1.2M, so the client is quite a bit ahead too. I will do some pics of my cnc boat building tools, soon. Got a new camera for it yesterday. Happy smile. Sorry for the length, but ... Complex issues do not always lend themselves to simplistic snappy one-liner answers or solutions. I hope I have given some solutions or ideas to people. All of us are smarter than any of us. Cheers, Hannu| 25051|25015|2011-01-26 04:59:16|David Frantz|Re: Banned ,two more times|Thanks for the post, you have a most interesting perspective. The problem I have is this idea that as an engineer one can determine if any non trivial engineering approach is safe. I pick out aviation because this is one industry where safety has always been a significant concern. Yet we still have planes that fall out of the sky and end up learning from experience. That is in an industry that goes to extraordinary lengths to assure safety and then has extensive Government over site to deal with. The whole point here is there is nothing in life that is 100% free of risk. Engineering can reduce the probability of failure to a very low level but it can never eliminate it. The other big problem I have is this idea, at least in the USA, is that if you make something you are liable for it forever. Build a machine tool that is used for 40 years and if some one gets hurt on it year 41, you are responsible. Or automobile, plane, kitchen appliance or whatever. I just don't see that as reasonable, considering the limited control you have over the life of that device. As to Brents boats im not worried. For one it will be sometime before I will have anything similar. What would be nice though is to see one of these engineers actually analyze the designs even if that means a bunch of computer time. As a firm believer in the old adage that nothing is perfect, let's find the faults or areas that can be improved. David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. On Jan 26, 2011, at 3:36 AM, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > I like the chatter, grin ;) > > Matt´s post re: engineering and other licensing is somewhat simplistic, > and engineering and other licenses vary greatly throughout the world. > Likewise, comparing an internet post to a certified engineers > certificate seems to be over the top. > > In my experience, the engineering societies are often not geared > (forgive the pun) to deliver safe or reliable structures. > They are geared to support the engineering society, and this is most > emphatically NOT the same thing. > > I happen to live in a country where this has been taken to an absurd > level (Spain), and as a consequence finally some sanity is being > asserted (Ley omnibus last year). > In Spain, everything is licensed and certified, nothing is well built or > well done, and no-one is ever responsible. > There is absolutely no real-world personal liability in Spain, as an > engineering (marine) professional, nor a lawyer etc. (My wife is a > lawyear and in the professional society, both here in Spain and in > Finland, licensed to practice in both countries). > Here I speak of the actual, real-world situation. > Architects and engineers are about the same thing, in Spain (arquitecto > tecnico). What happens is that an architect is supposed to be personally > responsible ... however the classification society (Collegio de > Arquitectos) has a catch-all insurance, and in the case of a failure it > is not the architect defending a failed structural design, but the > architectural society, and done (and paid for) by the previously > mentioned collegio de arquitectos who have lawyers on staff, and these > same lawyers are the ones who then determine that the architect is/was > not at fault, as society rules were followed. > Thus, in the court of first instance the architect escapes, totally, any > responsibility. > Of course, it is also possible to then re-sue, personally, the collegio > de architectos. Quiet apart from the fact that each process, with > appeals, takes 8 years and you gotta do the first before the second, > there is no effective collections mechanism, unlike most of the rest of > the world. > Thus, liens, etc. are spectacularly ineffective, and legal tricks like > writing things in someone elses name/company/apparent ownership are both > common, accepted by the courts, and not de-facto illegal. > And of course suing the classification society is going to have a poor > likelyhood of success (besides requiring rather deep pockets and the 16 > years of time). > > The other extreme would be germany, where nothing is done poorly. > Carftmanship of electricians and plumbers is at a fantastic level, > always. This is driven by 2 factors- > 1. One, professional training (in germany), and old guild-style thinking > and a pride in workmanship. High cost of all work, leading to good > wages, and the related ability of craftsmen to invest in the > appropriate, excellent, tools and techniques. > 2. Personal liability > I was told (and believe) that all electricians, engineers etc. are > personally liable unless they have done the work to the highest > standards. Thus, no-one will do a poor job because 1. the client wont > pay for it and does not want it, and 2. you yourself end up paying for > failure down the road. > > I have read a lot of classification societies rules. > They generally all have back-out clauses. They say that the scantling > must be x, OR another proven method, or demonstrably true method. > > Likewise, stability calculations are given as either calculations or a > controlled-inclination test. > > Conclusion: > I believe that the Brent boats could quite easily be classified, if this > was desired, structurally. > I doubt that there would be any problem. > > However, where they would probably have problems is in the fact that as > owner-built boats, often done cheaply and with inadequate engineering > matrials, they would then fail because they do not have the required, > and quite sensible, imo, proper breakers, tinned marine wiring, approved > gas-rated hose, approved glazing ie portlights etc. > None of the last is Brents fault or responsibility, of course. An > owner-builder outfits his boat as he sees fit, and then carries the > consequences thereof. > > I myself suscribe to the school of common sense. > When I build something or work with something where someone may die, I > will make very sure it wont fail because of my errors. > If required, I will get it approved, and insured. > I will, at need, work with the classification societies, on an as-needed > basis. > > I have done this with power supplies on PCs (OCTEK, BT-Mikro, Finland, > around 1986), approved by the Finnish electrical Safety Institue. > and the Shpheremania ramp In Barcelona 2 years back (Amusement Park), > approved by the UK ADEPS Amusement Parks Health and safety. > And a 35 kW (which is a LOT of power) 3-phase electrical installation > for a restaurant, about 2 years back. Approved by "Ingenieria" and FECSA > in Barcelona. > All are traditional, engineering societies, and all approved inspected > what I did, approved it, and signed off on the insurance. > I have no personal liability any more in either case, as I have followed > the rules. > > In the Spheremania case, I used a UK classification society for about > 1500, as the spanish one would have cost more than 15.000€, and required > 2-4 months time and paperwork and using THEIR engineers to inspect it > and do the reports, at my cost. > The UK society said it does not matter who does the design (me) but how > it is done, inspected by them. > The very pleasant ex-mine engineer who came to look at it, told me in > ten minutes he will approve it, as there is no posssible way it can fail > dangerously, or hurt or kill someone if it does. We did some minor > additions (fences etc) and that was it. > > I am quite certain it would be possible to classify Brent boats in Europe. > Some minor changes and or calculations and or tests would probably need > to be done. > After doing a stability test, in a tank (not hard, and not expensive, > just dont put the interior in beforehand), I am sure that they could > then be sold, licensed, used as passenger vessels whatever is needed or > desired. > > I may do a big 5-axis router to machine 6 m long large wooden logs, soon. > I will build it to an engineering standard, using suitable components. > These are unlikely to be things like snake-oil safety relays, sold at > 200 £ each by snake-oil salesmen similar to marine snake-oil salesmen. > Instead, I will use std dual relays, where a failure will cause it to > fail open, one way or the other. I will then have it inspected by > someone who belongs to a suitable society, and have them sign off on it. > The router will probably pay for my boat (It is likely to be about > 70-80k€. Grin). Of course a std production line is 1.2M, so the client > is quite a bit ahead too. > > I will do some pics of my cnc boat building tools, soon. Got a new > camera for it yesterday. Happy smile. > Sorry for the length, but ... > Complex issues do not always lend themselves to simplistic snappy > one-liner answers or solutions. > I hope I have given some solutions or ideas to people. > All of us are smarter than any of us. > > Cheers, > Hannu > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 25052|25052|2011-01-26 06:54:51|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|sailboat overhaul in Mexico or foreign country?|Does anyone has experience in fixing their boat in a foreign country, is it easy an cheap to find a place for doing some welding, painting and modifications to your sailboat in Mexico, Central America, maybe South America or another foreign country? Martin| 25053|25015|2011-01-26 07:04:34|Ben Okopnik|Re: Banned ,two more times|On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 02:22:00AM -0500, David Frantz wrote: > Hi Matt; > > The problem with Engineering Societies and professional licensing is > that they believe their own dogma and forget the reality that we are > all human. Thus when a bridge falls down or a building topples over > it is by definition and engineering failure. Well, no. This is precisely where Matt's point applies: as an engineer, once you have done your due diligence - i.e., your design follows the standards - you're essentially absolved of responsibility. Whoever built it incorrectly, or whoever supplied sub-standard materials, is at fault, and the failure analysis will show that. Yes, there are lots of edge cases here: e.g., when you're designing something that involves completely new principles, there's no way to predict everything. That's a given, and the legal paperwork explicitly absolving the designers from responsibility in those cases (and the precise definition of where that comes into effect) is likely to weigh more and be bigger than the project to be built. Having said that, I also believe that we've come to a point where our lawsuit-happy society prevents 99% of possible innovation. I agree with Matt's statement about the public often coming up with ridiculous ideas based on mumbo-jumbo junk "science" - but that doesn't mean that _all_ new ideas are worthless and that they all should be lumped into that pile. Brent's ideas succeeded because he was willing to put his life and safety on the line to prove them - but with some ideas, that's not enough, or simply would have no effect. Not to denigrate the value of engineering, but - as with anything - there's a downside to it, and that downside is the chilling effect on innovation that does not come from within that group. But then, that's not where innovation is supposed to come from: by training, habit, and doctrine, "engineer" means "traditionalist". The advances aer supposed to come from science - at which point, engineers rewrite their standards and go on their merry way. The problem is, again, that not all discoveries involve new science - and this is where most of the collisions happen. > A good structural engineer may be able to design a > structure with a very high probability of structural safety but I'm > willing to say it is near impossible for a software engineer project. > If they can't do safe software in the aerospace industry, with all the > energy time and effort they put into their projects, I'm not sure how > it can ever be accomplished on a lesser scale. Oh, dear. I'm sorry, but now you're intruding on my bailiwick. One of the things I teach is computer security, a large part of which is risk estimation; something I've studied for many years now. It is indeed possible to have a completely testable, 100%-provably working software design; we even have computer languages that specifically exist for that purpose. It's not a question of "can it be done" - it can. The question is, can it be done within the kind of budgets that are allocated for software engineering? The answer in almost all cases is "NO": any software designed and built to that specification would cost thousands, or tens of thousands times more than software not written to that standard - for - ready for this? *** NO VISIBLE INCREASE IN FUNCTIONALITY. *** Can you see yourself paying $100k for a word processor that works exactly as well as the one you're using now? How about $10-50M for an operating system? That would be roughly the per-user cost of projects of that size and complexity (honestly, I don't think the latter is even possible - there aren't enough programmers trained in those disciplines.) That's just not going to happen. This is why the only projects that are written in, say, fully-specified Ada-95 are government projects. Relatively small ones, I should say, and very few of them. So - yeah, it's possible to write that kind of programs, but neither you nor anyone else is willing to pay for them. It's one of those things that people constantly complain about - but when it comes down to it, they run Windows. :) > In any event the problem I have with the Engineering mind set is simy > this. If you believe a design is unsafe then prove it with the tools > you have available. If you can't then shut up. That's a rather nonsensical attitude. Matt just explained why that kind of proof is not possible in any sort of a complex structure. Your statement basically comes down to, "if you can't prove that engineering is perfect, then any idiot's 'design' is as good as the best engineering in the world." Engineers do the best they can with the tools that they have, and they keep refining their knowledge and their tools - but that process will never end, and will in fact remain in that exact state, because engineers are the very people that are called upon to push the limits of the possible. They can _never_ know everything, or have answers to everything, because their job is to expand the borders of what "everything" means. Again, this is not to say that engineering is the answer to all problems, or that it doesn't create problems of its own. But to denigrate it because it's not perfect shows a lack of understanding of what it is, or even what it's for. > Frankly I think these guys like to hide behind their regulations just > to feel safe. The funny thing is there is not a year that goes by > that I don't read about several types of boats sinking. It may be a > research ship in the artic, or a pleasure boat hit by a whale or some > drunk out on the great lakes. The thing is they end up on the bottom > scantlings in spec or not. Same problem. If you designed a completely unsinkable boat, it would a) cost more than anyone could afford, and b) would be too big and too much of a fuel hog to go anywhere. Everything about boats is a trade-off, once you've met certain criteria for strength, etc. The question here is not whether a certain boat design can sink; somewhere out there, just under the surface, is a reef that's shaped and composed exactly right to open up a Swain boat like a can of beans. The question is, is that design good enough to survive in that environment in anything short of a (pick a high number)-to-one chance? Engineering can serve that purpose. So can practical experience. The best is usually a blend of both, and I happen to think that Brent is enough of an engineer along with being a very experienced sailor, as well as - perhaps most importantly - possessing an uncommonly-sharp sense of what works, and a strong drive to refine that as time goes on. > Don't get me wrong I have nothing against building things in a safe > manner. But this mentality that says that if you don't do it our way, > you are going to be drummed out of the club or threatened via legal > action is pathetic. I agree that there's a huge downside to it - but don't ignore the upside. It's what keeps you and most other people safe, and able to use cars, buildings, tools, toys, and most other things in a reasonably safe manner. Without engineering, we'd still be living in caves and smashing stuff with rocks (crushing a few fingers in the process, no doubt; rocks aren't normally shaped for an efficient grip.) It would be a bit silly to say "because it's not perfect, let's toss it all out!" The question is, how to keep it _and_ promote innovation. > In the end the wolf pack zeros in on the lone sheep. Fortunately this > sheep has some claws. Much more importantly, Brent has the courage of his convictions. Yeah, some people are going to see him as rude and argumentative. [shrug] You can only disagree politely when the status quo *doesn't* hold your beliefs, inventions, and thoughts as worthless and dangerous. Remaining polite in that kind of environment _is_ being a sheep going to the slaughter. 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| 25054|25052|2011-01-26 07:21:56|Ben Okopnik|Re: sailboat overhaul in Mexico or foreign country?|On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:54:41AM -0000, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Does anyone has experience in fixing their boat in a foreign > country, is it easy an cheap to find a place for doing some welding, > painting and modifications to your sailboat in Mexico, Central > America, maybe South America or another foreign country? Yep. Some places are better than others - e.g., Punta Arenas and that whole area in Venezuela is a great place to have all kind of work done on your boat at very reasonable work rates - but in most places, you can expect 1) the availability of *lots* of cheap labor and 2) a general lack of craftsmanship. In other words, if you own a "yachty", highly-polished gold-plater, stick to cruising in the First World. If you're on a Brentboat, or something similar, you can go anywhere you please. :) Besides, if you've built it yourself, you're far more likely to fix it yourself. I've pretty much given up on hiring anyone to work on my boat. Not that I've done a huge amount of it anyway, but I think I only recall two cases where the work was done to my satisfaction (and I'm not very nitpicky.) When I do it myself, it gets done right and for the right cost - or it gets done over until it is done right, with no arguments or backtalk. Oh, and the satisfaction of having done something well is immense. That's the way I like 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| 25055|25015|2011-01-26 07:39:35|Matt Malone|Re: Banned ,two more times|OK Hannu, Now you are just disappointing.... "engineering and other licenses vary greatly throughout the world." Yes, and I am telling you, here in Canada, what I have said, is accurate. Engineers have been disciplined for writing "looks good" on someone's sketch for their back yard deck, after there was an accident involving the deck. The neighbour building the deck "relied" on the the engineer's word. Every single day I produce written documents, including e-mail, and every day they are reviewed before sent. And your generalizations of other countries... is only likely to make others disappointed. Simplistic. Try living it. Matt > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: gcode.fi@... > Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:36:55 +0100 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Banned ,two more times > > I like the chatter, grin ;) > > Matt�s post re: engineering and other licensing is somewhat simplistic, > and engineering and other licenses vary greatly throughout the world. > Likewise, comparing an internet post to a certified engineers > certificate seems to be over the top. > > In my experience, the engineering societies are often not geared > (forgive the pun) to deliver safe or reliable structures. > They are geared to support the engineering society, and this is most > emphatically NOT the same thing. > > I happen to live in a country where this has been taken to an absurd > level (Spain), and as a consequence finally some sanity is being > asserted (Ley omnibus last year). > In Spain, everything is licensed and certified, nothing is well built or > well done, and no-one is ever responsible. > There is absolutely no real-world personal liability in Spain, as an > engineering (marine) professional, nor a lawyer etc. (My wife is a > lawyear and in the professional society, both here in Spain and in > Finland, licensed to practice in both countries). > Here I speak of the actual, real-world situation. > Architects and engineers are about the same thing, in Spain (arquitecto > tecnico). What happens is that an architect is supposed to be personally > responsible ... however the classification society (Collegio de > Arquitectos) has a catch-all insurance, and in the case of a failure it > is not the architect defending a failed structural design, but the > architectural society, and done (and paid for) by the previously > mentioned collegio de arquitectos who have lawyers on staff, and these > same lawyers are the ones who then determine that the architect is/was > not at fault, as society rules were followed. > Thus, in the court of first instance the architect escapes, totally, any > responsibility. > Of course, it is also possible to then re-sue, personally, the collegio > de architectos. Quiet apart from the fact that each process, with > appeals, takes 8 years and you gotta do the first before the second, > there is no effective collections mechanism, unlike most of the rest of > the world. > Thus, liens, etc. are spectacularly ineffective, and legal tricks like > writing things in someone elses name/company/apparent ownership are both > common, accepted by the courts, and not de-facto illegal. > And of course suing the classification society is going to have a poor > likelyhood of success (besides requiring rather deep pockets and the 16 > years of time). > > The other extreme would be germany, where nothing is done poorly. > Carftmanship of electricians and plumbers is at a fantastic level, > always. This is driven by 2 factors- > 1. One, professional training (in germany), and old guild-style thinking > and a pride in workmanship. High cost of all work, leading to good > wages, and the related ability of craftsmen to invest in the > appropriate, excellent, tools and techniques. > 2. Personal liability > I was told (and believe) that all electricians, engineers etc. are > personally liable unless they have done the work to the highest > standards. Thus, no-one will do a poor job because 1. the client wont > pay for it and does not want it, and 2. you yourself end up paying for > failure down the road. > > I have read a lot of classification societies rules. > They generally all have back-out clauses. They say that the scantling > must be x, OR another proven method, or demonstrably true method. > > Likewise, stability calculations are given as either calculations or a > controlled-inclination test. > > Conclusion: > I believe that the Brent boats could quite easily be classified, if this > was desired, structurally. > I doubt that there would be any problem. > > However, where they would probably have problems is in the fact that as > owner-built boats, often done cheaply and with inadequate engineering > matrials, they would then fail because they do not have the required, > and quite sensible, imo, proper breakers, tinned marine wiring, approved > gas-rated hose, approved glazing ie portlights etc. > None of the last is Brents fault or responsibility, of course. An > owner-builder outfits his boat as he sees fit, and then carries the > consequences thereof. > > I myself suscribe to the school of common sense. > When I build something or work with something where someone may die, I > will make very sure it wont fail because of my errors. > If required, I will get it approved, and insured. > I will, at need, work with the classification societies, on an as-needed > basis. > > I have done this with power supplies on PCs (OCTEK, BT-Mikro, Finland, > around 1986), approved by the Finnish electrical Safety Institue. > and the Shpheremania ramp In Barcelona 2 years back (Amusement Park), > approved by the UK ADEPS Amusement Parks Health and safety. > And a 35 kW (which is a LOT of power) 3-phase electrical installation > for a restaurant, about 2 years back. Approved by "Ingenieria" and FECSA > in Barcelona. > All are traditional, engineering societies, and all approved inspected > what I did, approved it, and signed off on the insurance. > I have no personal liability any more in either case, as I have followed > the rules. > > In the Spheremania case, I used a UK classification society for about > 1500, as the spanish one would have cost more than 15.000�, and required > 2-4 months time and paperwork and using THEIR engineers to inspect it > and do the reports, at my cost. > The UK society said it does not matter who does the design (me) but how > it is done, inspected by them. > The very pleasant ex-mine engineer who came to look at it, told me in > ten minutes he will approve it, as there is no posssible way it can fail > dangerously, or hurt or kill someone if it does. We did some minor > additions (fences etc) and that was it. > > I am quite certain it would be possible to classify Brent boats in Europe. > Some minor changes and or calculations and or tests would probably need > to be done. > After doing a stability test, in a tank (not hard, and not expensive, > just dont put the interior in beforehand), I am sure that they could > then be sold, licensed, used as passenger vessels whatever is needed or > desired. > > I may do a big 5-axis router to machine 6 m long large wooden logs, soon. > I will build it to an engineering standard, using suitable components. > These are unlikely to be things like snake-oil safety relays, sold at > 200 � each by snake-oil salesmen similar to marine snake-oil salesmen. > Instead, I will use std dual relays, where a failure will cause it to > fail open, one way or the other. I will then have it inspected by > someone who belongs to a suitable society, and have them sign off on it. > The router will probably pay for my boat (It is likely to be about > 70-80k�. Grin). Of course a std production line is 1.2M, so the client > is quite a bit ahead too. > > I will do some pics of my cnc boat building tools, soon. Got a new > camera for it yesterday. Happy smile. > Sorry for the length, but ... > Complex issues do not always lend themselves to simplistic snappy > one-liner answers or solutions. > I hope I have given some solutions or ideas to people. > All of us are smarter than any of us. > > Cheers, > Hannu > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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]| 25056|25052|2011-01-26 08:24:50|martin demers|Re: sailboat overhaul in Mexico or foreign country?|I didn't mean to find someone to do the job since I do most of everything myself but if it is easy to find the place to do it where I can have acces to electricity, sandblasting, air compressor and for a cheap price. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 07:21:52 -0500 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] sailboat overhaul in Mexico or foreign country? On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:54:41AM -0000, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Does anyone has experience in fixing their boat in a foreign > country, is it easy an cheap to find a place for doing some welding, > painting and modifications to your sailboat in Mexico, Central > America, maybe South America or another foreign country? Yep. Some places are better than others - e.g., Punta Arenas and that whole area in Venezuela is a great place to have all kind of work done on your boat at very reasonable work rates - but in most places, you can expect 1) the availability of *lots* of cheap labor and 2) a general lack of craftsmanship. In other words, if you own a "yachty", highly-polished gold-plater, stick to cruising in the First World. If you're on a Brentboat, or something similar, you can go anywhere you please. :) Besides, if you've built it yourself, you're far more likely to fix it yourself. I've pretty much given up on hiring anyone to work on my boat. Not that I've done a huge amount of it anyway, but I think I only recall two cases where the work was done to my satisfaction (and I'm not very nitpicky.) When I do it myself, it gets done right and for the right cost - or it gets done over until it is done right, with no arguments or backtalk. Oh, and the satisfaction of having done something well is immense. That's the way I like 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25057|25015|2011-01-26 08:29:06|Giuseppe Bergman|Re: Banned ,two more times|Uh, Hannu, allow to be shown another notion concerning the situation in Germany: Translation: The swing: 1. owners intention 2. architects proposual 3. stress analysts restraints 4. magisterial authorized 5. realised by the guilds best craftsmen 6. settled result after refurbishment. Am 26.01.2011 um 09:36 schrieb CNC 6-axis Designs: > > The other extreme would be germany, where nothing is done poorly. > Carftmanship of electricians and plumbers is at a fantastic level, > always. This is driven by 2 factors- > 1. One, professional training (in germany), and old guild-style thinking > and a pride in workmanship. High cost of all work, leading to good > wages, and the related ability of craftsmen to invest in the > appropriate, excellent, tools and techniques. > 2. Personal liability > I was told (and believe) that all electricians, engineers etc. are > personally liable unless they have done the work to the highest > standards. Thus, no-one will do a poor job because 1. the client wont > pay for it and does not want it, and 2. you yourself end up paying for > failure down the road. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25058|24993|2011-01-26 09:08:01|normanbywaite|Re: sell up and sail - fact or fiction|The dream for me (like i'm sure many others) came from a book by someone "living the dream" of full-time cruising. I wanted that life, wanted it bad. So i jumped onto internet forums and began asking; "where do i start?" The answer came back loud and clear, and repeatedly; "go sailing first, join a club, buy a dinghy or trailer sailer and see if you still really like it after that." It was good advice and i followed it. I went to a local sailing club and discovered the 'joys' of being balast on someone's race boat. I bought a small plywood keel boat that was half sunk for $600 and restored her, sailed her for a couple of years. I bought a trailer sailer, then another, and have gone cruising for four or five days at a time. I even hauled one of them 3,000km to the Whitsundays for two weeks cruising in the tropics (wish i'd taken a tender though). But the most fun i had was when i found a bloke who was starting his around Australia retirement cruise on his Adams 31. He needed crew and i spend three great weeks cruising Bass Strait and the east coast of Australia. So now i reckon i've served my 'apprenticeship' and the goal of big boat cruising-liveaboard-full-time remains undiminished. So i'm hooked, smitten, and now only two years out from departure date i'm getting itchy to start preparations. Thanks to my experiences and to this forum in particular, i have various ideas and tastes and aspects to a cruising boat that i don't often find on the second-hand market here in Australia; like a steel boat, simple yet robust systems, etc... So rather than hope to find that perfect boat for me miraculously on the second-hand Aussie boat market at just the right time, for just the right price, i reckon i need to buy the cheap "fixer-upper" and do some basic repairs and preparations - and sailing on her for that matter, in all conditions. Or come to BC and hire Brent to build a boat for me. Daft as that may sound (or perhaps not) there's an economic argument i keep running into. I'd love to build a boat myself, the experience would be invaluable. But in my work i can earn more per hour than i'd be charged by local tradesmen. Whereas if i did the work myself it would take me twice (or more) as long, and i'd therefore 'lose' twice as much cashola. Whichever way i slice it economically, i'm more 'valuable' to the project when i'm nailed to my desk. But believe me, i'd much rather be out there getting my hands dirty than in front of the bloody computer (where i make my living).| 25059|24849|2011-01-26 10:39:11|martin demers|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|I often see old containers that some friends use for storage and from what I observed of how they are built they cannot be waterproof. Maybe some waterproof ones exist but I never saw one, someone would need to contact a shipping company and ask! Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:20:43 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? I can see several reasons "for" using a container. The main question: "Is Ocean Dry Shipping Container actually watertight"???. I saw several reports about lost at sea and recovered floating containers, but usually it was loaded with some "floating type" cargo. If it is not watertight, it defeats all possible advantages of using it. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I don't see the container serving any useful function. Just build the boat and go cruising. Keep it simple. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > OK, Matt. It could be useful to discuss this hypothetical project. Let say 20ft and 40ft boat-container-carrier. I already have 3D model, so I could play another day > > with it and provide some numbers. It might give people an idea what is involved to build a boat. I am still trying to figure it out by myself. And I am not boat designer - be easy on me. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25060|24849|2011-01-26 11:41:41|BrdbMc@aol.com|Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity?|Hi, Having spent time both at Tilbury and Manchester I have yet to see one with a wooden bottom. The ones a local motor bike training school bought did have a ply lining on the floor.Two are used to store bikes the other is an office come meeting centre,and very cosy. There are firms that will convert to housing, fittings include doors ,windows etc. Not sure if they float but if the do would make a nice size boathouse. That could give BWW a headache Mikeafloat -----Original Message----- From: martin demers To: origamiboats Sent: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:39 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? often see old containers that some friends use for storage and from what I bserved of how they are built they cannot be waterproof. aybe some waterproof ones exist but I never saw one, someone would need to ontact a shipping company and ask! Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com rom: williswildest@... ate: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:20:43 +0000 ubject: [origamiboats] Re: Is a good sailboat the luxury or necessity? I can see several reasons "for" using a container. The main question: "Is cean Dry Shipping Container actually watertight"???. I saw several reports bout lost at sea and recovered floating containers, but usually it was loaded ith some "floating type" cargo. If it is not watertight, it defeats all ossible advantages of using it. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I don't see the container serving any useful function. Just build the boat and o cruising. Keep it simple. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > OK, Matt. It could be useful to discuss this hypothetical project. Let say 0ft and 40ft boat-container-carrier. I already have 3D model, so I could play nother day > > with it and provide some numbers. It might give people an idea what is nvolved to build a boat. I am still trying to figure it out by myself. And I am ot boat designer - be easy on me. > > [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] | 25061|25052|2011-01-26 12:00:35|Ben Okopnik|Re: sailboat overhaul in Mexico or foreign country?|On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 08:24:49AM -0500, martin demers wrote: > > I didn't mean to find someone to do the job since I do most of > everything myself but if it is easy to find the place to do it where > I can have acces to electricity, sandblasting, air compressor and for > a cheap price. Electricity, no problem. Sandblasting and compressor... not very likely most places unless you're in a boatyard, or at least near a largish industrial city like Santo Domingo in the DR. To get your boat hauled, you really have to find a boatyard. Fortunately, most countries with a coastline use it - and that generally means a boatyard somewhere. Tip: you might want to talk to local commercial fishermen wherever you see boats of a reasonable size and do some strategic beer buying. Just asking isn't going to work: the place just up the river where they all haul their boats is "OK for poor men like us, but not for a fancy 'yate' like Señor has", so the answer to "is there a boat yard around here?" is always going to be "sorry, no - you must go 200 miles up the coast to the big city!" If you can convince them that "the Señor" would not be ashamed to see his "yate" next to their "poor boats", you just might find a place to haul for a very reasonable rate (and you'd be giving a boost to the local economy with your wallet, too.) 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| 25062|25015|2011-01-26 12:21:49|wild_explorer|Re: Banned ,two more times|As Matt said, the difference between medical doctor and engineer is: IF someone dead, doctor just say "Ooooops....", engineer will be blamed to the end of its carrier. We are talking about PROFESSIONALS, not about who just got diploma/license somehow. There is a BIG difference between them. What makes "Open Software projects" so great? It is done by people who enjoying doing it. They do it not for money, but because they like to do it at their spare time. And they do MUCH better than who does it 8-to-5 and go home and do other hobbies. Going to sea, you already taking the risk. It is personal decision what level of risk you are willing to take. Some people willing to cross the ocean in a bathtub, other will keep land in sight even on a large boat. Same with "safety of a boat". Everybody should choose what is safe for them, their families, etc. That why I prefer to have as much information as possible (reading forum, trying to educate myself, collecting pros and cons, doing estimates). And that why I like to see different opinions in this group. I do not want to see "pissing contests", but rather exchange of opinions with reasoning. If someone can show some numbers - great! If not, we have to use old approach - trials, tests and track-records. Do not be upset by boat-builders just because they "play safe". They need to run business. Even air industry has "experimental craft" category. If you pick a model from such category, you accepting the risk associated with it. There is a difference between "Concept", "Design" and "Ready_for_production". In boat industry (as I know), adjustments are made by boat builder to original design to bring it to some basic requirements or it should be approved and get a release as experimental craft (I could be wrong though).| 25063|25063|2011-01-26 12:42:46|Linus|thru hull for galley sink|Hey, I have been following this group for almost a year. Although at the moment I have a fiberglass boat (1978 Hunter/Cherubini 33), I like the common sense (why waste money) approach to boats you guys have. My question is this, is the 1-1/2" below water line hole in my boat that us only used to drain water from the galley sink to the outside really the best solution to getting rid of the used water? The sea cock currently there is a "Home Store" brass gate valve that is frozen and needs to be replaced asap. I plan to haul her out next month and was wondering if there was a viable solution that would allow me to just re-fiberglass that hole.| 25064|25015|2011-01-26 12:55:40|Ben Okopnik|Re: Banned ,two more times|On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 05:21:48PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > Do not be upset by boat-builders just because they "play safe". They > need to run business. So what that comes down to in this case is, the average engineer is not qualified to judge Brent's designs: engineering is all about sticking to the known and the measurable and rejecting anything that can't be measured with that yardstick. Experience can't be neatly packaged up into numbers that way, so in the engineering profession, it doesn't count. A couple of days ago, I had a conversation with a retired systems designer who turned out to know a lot of the people I worked with at Hughes Aircraft. At one point, we were talking about the amazing, mostly invisible to the public, groups of people in little specialty shops that concentrate on specific bits of knowledge and execute them better than anyone else in the world (and, unfortunately, a decrease in the number of those shops now that the US isn't all that active in the space game any more.) I mentioned a guy that I worked with, "Foul-mouth" Ed, who couldn't be fired despite his foul mouth (which ran all the time): Ed could cut a quartz crystal, by hand and using nothing more than an Xacto knife and a pair of calipers, that would do exactly the right thing in a quasi-optical system (i.e., at soft X-ray frequencies.) It would have taken millions of dollars worth of computer time to even approximate the shape of one of those lenses - and you'd have to recalculate again and again, probably taking 10 or 20 tries to get one right. Ed would whittle one, polish the faces, stick it into a waveguide, look at the readings, and whittle a little more, and be done in an hour. I knew guys like that in rocketry, millimeter-wave design, TWTA analysis, and lots of other disciplines. What they could do was impossible to chart, graph, or put into any kind of a measurement system - but without them, the space program would have been impossible. Engineering is a terrific, broadly-useful discipline, but it's not the right shmear for every type of bread. :) 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| 25065|25015|2011-01-26 13:03:19|William Munger|Re: Banned ,two more times|[ Ed could cut a quartz crystal, by hand and using nothing more than an Xacto knife and a pair of calipers, that would do exactly the right thing in a quasi-optical system (i.e., at soft X-ray frequencies.) ] Having done some gemstone cutting, I have to say this ability is impressive to say the least! William| 25066|25015|2011-01-26 13:16:55|wild_explorer|Re: Banned ,two more times|Now we are talking about craftsmanship, which is even more valuable than engineering and was used for thousands of years ;)) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > What they could do was > impossible to chart, graph, or put into any kind of a measurement system > - but without them, the space program would have been impossible. > | 25067|25015|2011-01-26 13:27:38|Ben Okopnik|Re: Banned ,two more times|On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 01:03:05PM -0500, William Munger wrote: > [ Ed could cut a quartz crystal, by hand and using nothing more than an > Xacto > knife and a pair of calipers, that would do exactly the right thing in a > quasi-optical system (i.e., at soft X-ray frequencies.) ] > > Having done some gemstone cutting, I have to say this ability is > impressive to say the least! Heh. Yeah - you know about creating reflection and refraction by cutting (a GIA graduate once explained some of the intricacies of gemstone cutting to me), so you understand the basics of what he was doing. Thing is, he was tuning for wavelengths of 1-2mm... just theoretically impossible stuff, like trying to write all of Shakespeare on a grain of dust. Ed did it with about as much concern and focus as scraping mud off a shoe. He was a _seriously_ strange cookie who liked being the big fish in that kind of a small pond. As his *hobby*, he used to repair electrical systems in Sprites, Austin-Healys, MGs and such - those Lucas systems were nearly impossible to troubleshoot, and no auto mechanic (in the US, anyway) would ever bother trying. As a result, if you owned one of those cars in the L.A. area, you had to keep on Ed's good side and take his crap - because otherwise, you were totally of luck if you had an electrical problem. He also had a computer system - this was back in the mid-80s - that cost him about $10 to put together. He had bought 90% of it at military surplus sales, but couldn't get a monitor to fit the weird video system. His solution was to buy a wide-carriage printer and 3 *tons* of greenbar paper at one of those auctions for $2 (!!!) - every time his "display" updated, the printer just ran off another sheet. No, you couldn't fit Ed into any kind of an engineering chart or graph. 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| 25068|25015|2011-01-26 13:34:51|Ben Okopnik|Re: Banned ,two more times|On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 06:16:46PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > Now we are talking about craftsmanship, which is even more valuable > than engineering and was used for thousands of years ;)) _More_ valuable, no: you can't build modern civilization, which depends on mass production, around craftsmanship. Valuable in parallel, yes - incredibly so. In some cases - e.g., where quality regardless of price is required - craftsmanship is the only possible approach, because engineering alone won't do it. I think that may be the answer here: Brent has found a way to "package" and teach enough craftsmanship to individual builders that it survives the process without the "master craftsman" being there. And being craftsmanship, it may or may not fit engineering standards - but it may also surpass them in ways that can't be measured but can definitely be experienced. 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| 25069|25015|2011-01-26 13:48:28|wild_explorer|Re: Banned ,two more times|Agreed!!! --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > I think that may be the answer here: Brent has found a way to "package" > and teach enough craftsmanship to individual builders that it survives > the process without the "master craftsman" being there. And being > craftsmanship, it may or may not fit engineering standards - but it may > also surpass them in ways that can't be measured but can definitely be > experienced. > > > Ben | 25070|25015|2011-01-26 13:52:21|BrdbMc@aol.com|Re: Banned ,two more times|Hi, Having served a five year apprenticeship 1957/1962 at the Morris Garages in Oxford ,the original MGs I find it hard to believe that Lucas systems were hard to trouble shoot. The most complicated part was the voltage control regulator,other than that a 12 volt bulb plus two croc clips was about it. Mikeafloat -----Original Message----- From: Ben Okopnik s To: origamiboats Sent: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:27 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Banned ,two more times On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 01:03:05PM -0500, William Munger wrote: [ Ed could cut a quartz crystal, by hand and using nothing more than an Xacto knife and a pair of calipers, that would do exactly the right thing in a quasi-optical system (i.e., at soft X-ray frequencies.) ] Having done some gemstone cutting, I have to say this ability is impressive to say the least! Heh. Yeah - you know about creating reflection and refraction by cutting a GIA graduate once explained some of the intricacies of gemstone utting to me), so you understand the basics of what he was doing. Thing s, he was tuning for wavelengths of 1-2mm... just theoretically mpossible stuff, like trying to write all of Shakespeare on a grain of ust. Ed did it with about as much concern and focus as scraping mud off shoe. He was a _seriously_ strange cookie who liked being the big fish in that ind of a small pond. As his *hobby*, he used to repair electrical ystems in Sprites, Austin-Healys, MGs and such - those Lucas systems ere nearly impossible to troubleshoot, and no auto mechanic (in the US, nyway) would ever bother trying. As a result, if you owned one of those ars in the L.A. area, you had to keep on Ed's good side and take his rap - because otherwise, you were totally of luck if you had an lectrical problem. He also had a computer system - this was back in the mid-80s - that cost im about $10 to put together. He had bought 90% of it at military urplus sales, but couldn't get a monitor to fit the weird video system. is solution was to buy a wide-carriage printer and 3 *tons* of greenbar aper at one of those auctions for $2 (!!!) - every time his "display" pdated, the printer just ran off another sheet. No, you couldn't fit Ed into any kind of an engineering chart or graph. 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] | 25071|25015|2011-01-26 14:04:07|Ben Okopnik|Re: Banned ,two more times|On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 01:52:10PM -0500, BrdbMc@... wrote: > > Hi, > Having served a five year apprenticeship 1957/1962 at the Morris Garages in Oxford ,the original MGs > I find it hard to believe that Lucas systems were hard to trouble shoot. > The most complicated part was the voltage control regulator,other than that a 12 volt bulb plus two croc > clips was about it. As I recall - please realize that this is from remembering what Ed told me about it, along with a bit of demonstration, some 25 years ago - it was mostly the wiring color scheme (your choice of brown, brown, or brown) and the way that the wiring had been installed where it passed parts of the car body that moved (unprotected, so it tended to chafe deep inside the wiring channels.) Again, this is not of my own knowledge, so I can't vouch for any of 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| 25072|25015|2011-01-26 15:14:17|BrdbMc@aol.com|Re: Banned ,two more times|Hi chafing is still a problem .Brown was the colour of the main feeds,all wiring was colour code with each circuit having its own code a main colour with a tracer to determine its function and l/h or r/h. The coding was not the same as used in USA. I had problems when working on cars from the local USAF bases around Oxford for the same reason. Changing the subject I admire people who go against the conventional practices and show there is more than one way to develop. In 1965 a car team turned up to race at the indie 500,there were some that opposed the car saying it was incapable of racing on an oval track ,some even saying it was unsafe.The car went on to win the race. The driver Jim Clarke The car Lotus The lotus boss was quoted as stating "If it breaks strengthen it,if it doesn't brake its over engineered" a pretty drastic way to go but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Cheers Mikeafloat . -----Original Message----- From: Ben Okopnik To: origamiboats Sent: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:04 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Banned ,two more times On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 01:52:10PM -0500, BrdbMc@... wrote: Hi, Having served a five year apprenticeship 1957/1962 at the Morris Garages n Oxford ,the original MGs I find it hard to believe that Lucas systems were hard to trouble shoot. The most complicated part was the voltage control regulator,other than hat a 12 volt bulb plus two croc clips was about it. As I recall - please realize that this is from remembering what Ed told e about it, along with a bit of demonstration, some 25 years ago - it as mostly the wiring color scheme (your choice of brown, brown, or rown) and the way that the wiring had been installed where it passed arts of the car body that moved (unprotected, so it tended to chafe eep inside the wiring channels.) Again, this is not of my own nowledge, so I can't vouch for any of it. 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] | 25073|25015|2011-01-26 17:23:20|brentswain38|Re: Banned ,two more times|"Anything discontinuous causes unsolvable equations" pretty well sums up the irrelevance of orthodox ways of calculating things. I don't think minor changes in hull shape will change the basic principles which give origami hulls their well proven toughness. Many other boats , built to other designs, have all show the same basic toughness when subject to extreme conditions. My designs are by no means identical, but all have survived extreme conditions thrown at them. While, as you state the equations cant calculate everything or find every weakness, 16 days in big surf on a lee shore definitely will find any weakness, if any exist. It didn't find any, whatsoever. When I had a lawyer draw up a builders contract, he asked me about liability. I told him about the torture tests the boats had endured, long before even more extreme torture tests had been survived, and he said "That covers you completely , far better than anything else possibly could." Other lawyers specializing in civil suits have since confirmed his opinion. Your engineering students wouldn't be doing anything the sea hasn't already done , and tested , in real conditions.They passed all those tests with flying colours, many times. Had the Sleavin family , who were wiped out in a collision with a freighter, off the north coast of New Zealand , been in a steel boat, they all would have probably survived. Making good , well proven steel boats available to more cruisers, by simplifying the building process, and thus bringing down the cost, in both time and money will undoubtedly save a lot of lives. I've been attacked for the mere suggestion that we try use the lessons of that tragedy to enhance the safety of future cruisers, and their families. When someone said that origami methods only save time on the hull, and nothing else, I pointed out how I was flown in to build a 36 , for three weeks .At the end of three weeks I had tacked together the hull, decks, cabin cockpit , wheelhouse, keels, rudder skeg, lifelines , handrails, cleats, winch bases, hatches, mooring bits,chocks , bow roller , mast tabernacle, fully detailed the mast, self steering , anchor winch frame, etc etc in fact all the metal work , much of which has to be bought later, in the case of a non metal boat. my post was deleted. Some people often quote Michael Kasten, who claims origami can only be used for hulls and not for decks , cabins keels , rudders skegs etc. When I tell them that I have been using origami methods for all those parts for 30 years , my post gets deleted. Yes, information on origami is definitely getting censored. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Humm, how to describe this... I am an engineer. I have a darn good idea how hard it is to calculate stresses in the Brent designs. I recall doing 10-20 pages of partial differential calculus for shell shapes that are differentiable, meaning, no discontinuities of slope anywhere. Then we did simple, static loadings, like distributed pressures, self-weights. Anything discontinuous causes almost certainly unsolvable equations. My prof told me about his graduate exam where he had to analyze a silo design -- with nothing but a slide rule. > > Now we have finite element analysis, and I know a bit about that too, having done my masters thesis on shells, and complex, time-varying loadings. I used a Cray supercomputer for that stuff. Sure modern computers are a lot better, but, y boats are by no means identical nor the many other boats built using origami methods , but all have proven to have the same toughness when in extreme conditions. that does not make it any easier. I was only using 20 elements, in a 4-fold symmetry and it took 4 hours to run I think it was 200ms of simulation, on a Cray-YMP/22. On a boat, there is no symmetry, once one includes asymmetric waves, and heeling. Even 200 elements would not be many, and less than 10 seconds would be insufficient, and the number of cases that would have to be run, even if only 50 cases, that would be .... 10 million times the computational time ? And 50 cases would handle nothing really. > > So, there are engineers who take very seriously their responsibility to keep people safe, that things not fail, that they not be wrong, because if any of those things happen, people die. As a small detail they do not get to do it anymore, and people call them bad names, like negligent and incompetent. Yes, math and carefully controlled testing are a religion to them, what they use to define and quantify safe. The idea of a human experiment involving unnecessarily uncontrolled unknowns, where the negative outcome is drowning, is just not acceptable. It cannot ever be, because, if one engineer did it, sooner or later, a truly incompetent, negligent or indifferent engineer would and would start killing people by the dozens or hundreds. The community of engineers will do anything to prevent this, including, being unnecessarily cruel to those who are not engineers. > > As a professor, I cannot count the number of truly bad, fundamentally flawed, and sometimes dangerous ideas I fielded from the public. I would take hours sometimes explaining thoroughly why it could not work. I recall one where I thought the easiest explanation was to show, if what he was saying was true, I could do this adjustment and it would produce energy from nothing. I would then explain that this is accepted as not possible. Most of them left convinced there was a conspiracy to hold them down. At least one left believing he would solve the energy crisis -- The bunk science on the internet really has not helped this at all. I have also met a few who lied about what they had done. > > It seemed, as an employee in a public university, I owed a duty to be polite, and try to explain, instead of be dismissive and aloof. And to speak in science-speak would be no use at all. It took the sharpest minds 400 years to come up with it, and a lifetime for me to learn it. I knew they would take it about the same as the nonsensical religious doctrine of a cult without regard for reality. Unfortunately, many engineers will do just that, be dismissive and aloof, and some yes even fear, for themselves. As a group engineers fear that un-analyzed dangerous things might become once again fashionable, like so much other non-scientific thinking these days. Note that engineering was not nearly so analytically-based before 1910 there was a lot more "witch doctoring" and uga-boga math involved, and pretty geometrical patterns applied to shapes that, now in retrospect, were plainly meaningless, and I believe a dog and pony show for the people who contracted the work. And there have been no end of people in the last 100 years since who try to ignore fundamental scientific laws, analysis, prudence, and factors of safety and do things that involve people's safety. So it does not surprise me that Brent has been treated this way. > > It also does not surprise me that Brent has heard some nonsensical things from engineers -- but that is another story. > > Now, Brent's version of orgami is really quite brilliant in its combination of advantages -- low expense, easy construction, low complexity etc. And a few designs have been through quite a bit of real-world testing. The argument of the strength and toughness of steel is compelling as a way to overlook the unknowns. However, we cannot expect engineers to overlook unknowns and give up on 100 years of engineering "doctrine". > > Will I as an engineer describe any of Brent's designs as safe for your family ? I will duck the question, and talk about designs that other people's families have found safe, and that analysis can only go so far etc etc. Because, if I ever said anything was safe, and anyone ever depended on my word, even here in e-mail, and something went wrong, people could drown and I think that is really bad. As a small additional problem, my engineering licence that I have been working towards getting and keeping for 30 years -- I could lose it forever. Yeah those engineer types turn on their own in a second when people die. Not at all like doctors for instance. > > (Added note, once one has been trained as an engineer, one cannot do what Brent is doing, by law, without getting a licence. Someone trained as a natural scientist, or someone who is not scientifically trained must more blatantly run amuck of the professional engineer's associations before they get smacked... not someone trained as an engineer.) > > Now, can people orgami up a boat in any old way they like, completely new designs, especially ones very different from Brent's (please note Wild) and expected it to work out as well as the few designs that Brent and his customers have used for a long time ? I would say, we all know as much about those new designs as Brent did before he launched his first one -- un-analyzed, unproven. And if it is done often enough, and different enough, eventually, something is not going to work out right. This is why engineers hold so rigorously to analysis, and when analysis is too complex, testing it themselves before making any pronouncement with regard to safety. > > So to customers of Brent's I say, build it like the others that have worked, build it the way Brent showed you because, that design at least has years of testing. > > And to Brent I say, maybe it is time to try for certification as a shell without scantlings. I do not know if that is possible, but engineers and government agencies like tests. If an extra hull is not that hard to fold up, then make one, and try to get it certified -- invite them to test it to destruction. Maybe get a university involved -- Memorial in Newfoundland maybe. Engineering grad students need projects so they can get their masters thesis. They will want to cover it (likely the inside) with strain gauges and abuse it. Professors have little money, really. If you give them a bare hull, and it results in an engineering report from someone with a PhD, and lots of photographs from various projects and tests, then it might be easier to get one design certified. Once one design is certified, you have created the path by which very similar designs would get certified, with some testing. > > Does Brent need this ? No, not really. But, it sure did not hurt Ted Rogers Senior when he dropped out of university in second year, designed a radio station that did not require batteries, and got a licence to run it from the government -- CFRB (Rogers Batteriless). Swain Frameless Scantlings Standards.... Has a nice ring to it. Or Brent could just keep helping people make a few designs that have proven themselves in many years of service. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 02:04:05 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Banned ,two more times > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe it is their frustration at seeing so many unmilked customers happily cruising around in good boats, with cruising funds left over, which motivates their anger, and calls for me being banned, and my posts being censored. They don't want anyone to know there are more affordable, and often better alternatives. . > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > Brent, by my opinion, it would be waste of time trying to convince professional boat builders to follow your ideas. > > > > > > Customer-oriented designer (not deep-pocket-oriented) has better chance to pick-up your ideas. But not commercial boat builder. I see several reasons for that: > > > > > > - Many (not all) small boat-builders want "to milk the COW (client)" > > > - Big Reputable boat builder will "play safe" and follow all recommendations (even if it is JUST recommendations). They will use your type of logic: "If it worked for 100th of years - it tested for 100th of years" ;)) And, as you said, they need to go trough bureaucratic machine as well. > > > - Attitude "Car Mechanics hate unbreakable cars" > > > > > > Hey! But you have US (members) - who wants to do things more simple and efficient. All your advices are greatly appreciated in this group. > > > > > > P.S. This is one of few groups I still read. > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25074|25015|2011-01-26 17:33:57|brentswain38|Re: Banned ,two more times|All cruisers, who want more overwhelming government bureaucracy, and inspectors, with their hands out for cash, ruling our every move, in our entire lives , raise your hand. Didn't think so! --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > I like the chatter, grin ;) > > Matt´s post re: engineering and other licensing is somewhat simplistic, > and engineering and other licenses vary greatly throughout the world. > Likewise, comparing an internet post to a certified engineers > certificate seems to be over the top. > > In my experience, the engineering societies are often not geared > (forgive the pun) to deliver safe or reliable structures. > They are geared to support the engineering society, and this is most > emphatically NOT the same thing. > > I happen to live in a country where this has been taken to an absurd > level (Spain), and as a consequence finally some sanity is being > asserted (Ley omnibus last year). > In Spain, everything is licensed and certified, nothing is well built or > well done, and no-one is ever responsible. > There is absolutely no real-world personal liability in Spain, as an > engineering (marine) professional, nor a lawyer etc. (My wife is a > lawyear and in the professional society, both here in Spain and in > Finland, licensed to practice in both countries). > Here I speak of the actual, real-world situation. > Architects and engineers are about the same thing, in Spain (arquitecto > tecnico). What happens is that an architect is supposed to be personally > responsible ... however the classification society (Collegio de > Arquitectos) has a catch-all insurance, and in the case of a failure it > is not the architect defending a failed structural design, but the > architectural society, and done (and paid for) by the previously > mentioned collegio de arquitectos who have lawyers on staff, and these > same lawyers are the ones who then determine that the architect is/was > not at fault, as society rules were followed. > Thus, in the court of first instance the architect escapes, totally, any > responsibility. > Of course, it is also possible to then re-sue, personally, the collegio > de architectos. Quiet apart from the fact that each process, with > appeals, takes 8 years and you gotta do the first before the second, > there is no effective collections mechanism, unlike most of the rest of > the world. > Thus, liens, etc. are spectacularly ineffective, and legal tricks like > writing things in someone elses name/company/apparent ownership are both > common, accepted by the courts, and not de-facto illegal. > And of course suing the classification society is going to have a poor > likelyhood of success (besides requiring rather deep pockets and the 16 > years of time). > > The other extreme would be germany, where nothing is done poorly. > Carftmanship of electricians and plumbers is at a fantastic level, > always. This is driven by 2 factors- > 1. One, professional training (in germany), and old guild-style thinking > and a pride in workmanship. High cost of all work, leading to good > wages, and the related ability of craftsmen to invest in the > appropriate, excellent, tools and techniques. > 2. Personal liability > I was told (and believe) that all electricians, engineers etc. are > personally liable unless they have done the work to the highest > standards. Thus, no-one will do a poor job because 1. the client wont > pay for it and does not want it, and 2. you yourself end up paying for > failure down the road. > > I have read a lot of classification societies rules. > They generally all have back-out clauses. They say that the scantling > must be x, OR another proven method, or demonstrably true method. > > Likewise, stability calculations are given as either calculations or a > controlled-inclination test. > > Conclusion: > I believe that the Brent boats could quite easily be classified, if this > was desired, structurally. > I doubt that there would be any problem. > > However, where they would probably have problems is in the fact that as > owner-built boats, often done cheaply and with inadequate engineering > matrials, they would then fail because they do not have the required, > and quite sensible, imo, proper breakers, tinned marine wiring, approved > gas-rated hose, approved glazing ie portlights etc. > None of the last is Brents fault or responsibility, of course. An > owner-builder outfits his boat as he sees fit, and then carries the > consequences thereof. > > I myself suscribe to the school of common sense. > When I build something or work with something where someone may die, I > will make very sure it wont fail because of my errors. > If required, I will get it approved, and insured. > I will, at need, work with the classification societies, on an as-needed > basis. > > I have done this with power supplies on PCs (OCTEK, BT-Mikro, Finland, > around 1986), approved by the Finnish electrical Safety Institue. > and the Shpheremania ramp In Barcelona 2 years back (Amusement Park), > approved by the UK ADEPS Amusement Parks Health and safety. > And a 35 kW (which is a LOT of power) 3-phase electrical installation > for a restaurant, about 2 years back. Approved by "Ingenieria" and FECSA > in Barcelona. > All are traditional, engineering societies, and all approved inspected > what I did, approved it, and signed off on the insurance. > I have no personal liability any more in either case, as I have followed > the rules. > > In the Spheremania case, I used a UK classification society for about > 1500, as the spanish one would have cost more than 15.000€, and required > 2-4 months time and paperwork and using THEIR engineers to inspect it > and do the reports, at my cost. > The UK society said it does not matter who does the design (me) but how > it is done, inspected by them. > The very pleasant ex-mine engineer who came to look at it, told me in > ten minutes he will approve it, as there is no posssible way it can fail > dangerously, or hurt or kill someone if it does. We did some minor > additions (fences etc) and that was it. > > I am quite certain it would be possible to classify Brent boats in Europe. > Some minor changes and or calculations and or tests would probably need > to be done. > After doing a stability test, in a tank (not hard, and not expensive, > just dont put the interior in beforehand), I am sure that they could > then be sold, licensed, used as passenger vessels whatever is needed or > desired. > > I may do a big 5-axis router to machine 6 m long large wooden logs, soon. > I will build it to an engineering standard, using suitable components. > These are unlikely to be things like snake-oil safety relays, sold at > 200 £ each by snake-oil salesmen similar to marine snake-oil salesmen. > Instead, I will use std dual relays, where a failure will cause it to > fail open, one way or the other. I will then have it inspected by > someone who belongs to a suitable society, and have them sign off on it. > The router will probably pay for my boat (It is likely to be about > 70-80k€. Grin). Of course a std production line is 1.2M, so the client > is quite a bit ahead too. > > I will do some pics of my cnc boat building tools, soon. Got a new > camera for it yesterday. Happy smile. > Sorry for the length, but ... > Complex issues do not always lend themselves to simplistic snappy > one-liner answers or solutions. > I hope I have given some solutions or ideas to people. > All of us are smarter than any of us. > > Cheers, > Hannu > | 25075|25052|2011-01-26 17:38:58|brentswain38|Re: sailboat overhaul in Mexico or foreign country?|Last time I was in Ensenada, Mexico, the boatyard there was hopping with work on California boats , trying to escape the costs and bureaucracy of California. Many, small powerboats included, have Grand Cayman and Bahamas, as port of registry, to escape the USanian tax man. I'm told Tunisia was as busy with boaters trying to escape EU bureaucracy. Expect leaving the country to become more and more standard proceedure, as bureaucracy increases. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > Does anyone has experience in fixing their boat in a foreign country, is it easy an cheap to find a place for doing some welding, painting and modifications to your sailboat in Mexico, Central America, maybe South America or another foreign country? > > Martin > | 25076|25015|2011-01-26 17:40:30|Ben Okopnik|Re: Banned ,two more times|On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:33:42PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > All cruisers, who want more overwhelming government bureaucracy, and > inspectors, with their hands out for cash, ruling our every move, in > our entire lives , raise your hand. > Didn't think so! The problem is that there's too many of the other kind, who'd have their hand up in a flash. I've talked to a number of idiots whose automatic response to anything like that, including infants being frisked by the TSA, is "WELL, IF IT MAKES US ALL SAFER, I'M FOR IT!" Made me feel like throwing up. 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| 25077|25015|2011-01-26 17:50:40|brentswain38|Re: Banned ,two more times|I don't think you will find anything safer than a boat which has proven itself for over 30 years, enduring the many torture tests I have listed. Mid ocean in such a boat is the safest place on the planet to be. When I posted suggestions for minimizing fire hazard when welding on a foamed boat, my post was deleted. So who's concerned about safety there? Many have suggested that every word that comes out of my mouth is a lie. Those posts were never deleted. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > As Matt said, the difference between medical doctor and engineer is: IF someone dead, doctor just say "Ooooops....", engineer will be blamed to the end of its carrier. We are talking about PROFESSIONALS, not about who just got diploma/license somehow. There is a BIG difference between them. What makes "Open Software projects" so great? It is done by people who enjoying doing it. They do it not for money, but because they like to do it at their spare time. And they do MUCH better than who does it 8-to-5 and go home and do other hobbies. > > Going to sea, you already taking the risk. It is personal decision what level of risk you are willing to take. Some people willing to cross the ocean in a bathtub, other will keep land in sight even on a large boat. Same with "safety of a boat". Everybody should choose what is safe for them, their families, etc. > > That why I prefer to have as much information as possible (reading forum, trying to educate myself, collecting pros and cons, doing estimates). And that why I like to see different opinions in this group. I do not want to see "pissing contests", but rather exchange of opinions with reasoning. If someone can show some numbers - great! If not, we have to use old approach - trials, tests and track-records. > > Do not be upset by boat-builders just because they "play safe". They need to run business. Even air industry has "experimental craft" category. If you pick a model from such category, you accepting the risk associated with it. There is a difference between "Concept", "Design" and "Ready_for_production". In boat industry (as I know), adjustments are made by boat builder to original design to bring it to some basic requirements or it should be approved and get a release as experimental craft (I could be wrong though). > | 25078|25063|2011-01-26 17:54:40|brentswain38|Re: thru hull for galley sink|Some hook up a bilge pump, to pump sink water thru an above waterline thru hull , eliminating all underwater thru hulls. You could also put in a temporary storage tank so you could pump it when convenient. Mine is above the chine , so I could easily reach down and put a cork in it, if I were leaving the boat for a long time. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Linus" wrote: > > Hey, > I have been following this group for almost a year. Although at the moment I have a fiberglass boat (1978 Hunter/Cherubini 33), I like the common sense (why waste money) approach to boats you guys have. > > My question is this, is the 1-1/2" below water line hole in my boat that us only used to drain water from the galley sink to the outside really the best solution to getting rid of the used water? The sea cock currently there is a "Home Store" brass gate valve that is frozen and needs to be replaced asap. I plan to haul her out next month and was wondering if there was a viable solution that would allow me to just re-fiberglass that hole. > | 25079|25015|2011-01-26 18:02:57|brentswain38|Re: Banned ,two more times|Jefferson once said " Those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security , deserve neither" ( and end up with neither) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:33:42PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > All cruisers, who want more overwhelming government bureaucracy, and > > inspectors, with their hands out for cash, ruling our every move, in > > our entire lives , raise your hand. > > Didn't think so! > > The problem is that there's too many of the other kind, who'd have their > hand up in a flash. I've talked to a number of idiots whose automatic > response to anything like that, including infants being frisked by the > TSA, is "WELL, IF IT MAKES US ALL SAFER, I'M FOR IT!" > > Made me feel like throwing up. > > > 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 > | 25080|25015|2011-01-26 19:18:40|rhko47|Re: Banned ,two more times|But as I recall, Lucas *were* called "the people who invented darkness". --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, BrdbMc@... wrote: > > > Hi, > Having served a five year apprenticeship 1957/1962 at the Morris Garages in Oxford ,the original MGs > I find it hard to believe that Lucas systems were hard to trouble shoot. > The most complicated part was the voltage control regulator,other than that a 12 volt bulb plus two croc > clips was about it. > > Mikeafloat > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Okopnik s > To: origamiboats > Sent: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:27 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Banned ,two more times > > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 01:03:05PM -0500, William Munger wrote: > [ Ed could cut a quartz crystal, by hand and using nothing more than an > Xacto > knife and a pair of calipers, that would do exactly the right thing in a > quasi-optical system (i.e., at soft X-ray frequencies.) ] > > Having done some gemstone cutting, I have to say this ability is > impressive to say the least! > Heh. Yeah - you know about creating reflection and refraction by cutting > a GIA graduate once explained some of the intricacies of gemstone > utting to me), so you understand the basics of what he was doing. Thing > s, he was tuning for wavelengths of 1-2mm... just theoretically > mpossible stuff, like trying to write all of Shakespeare on a grain of > ust. Ed did it with about as much concern and focus as scraping mud off > shoe. > He was a _seriously_ strange cookie who liked being the big fish in that > ind of a small pond. As his *hobby*, he used to repair electrical > ystems in Sprites, Austin-Healys, MGs and such - those Lucas systems > ere nearly impossible to troubleshoot, and no auto mechanic (in the US, > nyway) would ever bother trying. As a result, if you owned one of those > ars in the L.A. area, you had to keep on Ed's good side and take his > rap - because otherwise, you were totally of luck if you had an > lectrical problem. > He also had a computer system - this was back in the mid-80s - that cost > im about $10 to put together. He had bought 90% of it at military > urplus sales, but couldn't get a monitor to fit the weird video system. > is solution was to buy a wide-carriage printer and 3 *tons* of greenbar > aper at one of those auctions for $2 (!!!) - every time his "display" > pdated, the printer just ran off another sheet. > No, you couldn't fit Ed into any kind of an engineering chart or graph. > > 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@...! > roups Links > Individual Email | Traditional > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25081|25015|2011-01-26 19:29:33|Ben Okopnik|Re: Banned ,two more times|On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:18:30AM -0000, rhko47 wrote: > But as I recall, Lucas *were* called "the people who invented darkness". "Lucas, the Prince of Darkness" returns 4,340 hits on Google. :) 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| 25082|25082|2011-01-26 19:38:08|ve7vmt2001|Lucas. No Origami content.|I seem to recall that Lucas were responsible for the electronics on the space shuttle, anyone confirm this? John in Campbell River| 25083|25082|2011-01-26 19:50:54|martin demers|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|if that is true, I hope they did a better job than on Triumph Tr7 British cars. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: fullers@... Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 00:37:59 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Lucas. No Origami content. I seem to recall that Lucas were responsible for the electronics on the space shuttle, anyone confirm this? John in Campbell River [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25084|25015|2011-01-26 20:44:42|wild_explorer|Re: Banned ,two more times|Brent, I am with you on this one, BUT... There is reality - North America may be is still not overwhelmed with regulations, but many countries are. And people unable to go "somewhere else" to build a boat. So, they have to buy it or follow ALL regulations to be able to register it. P.S. And... There is nothing more scary for bureaucrat than something new. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > All cruisers, who want more overwhelming government bureaucracy, and inspectors, with their hands out for cash, ruling our every move, in our entire lives , raise your hand. > Didn't think so! | 25085|25015|2011-01-26 21:04:05|wild_explorer|Re: Banned ,two more times|This will fall into "track-records" category (as many old-good designs before "engineering times"). Boat designs were sorted-out this way for thousands of years... --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I don't think you will find anything safer than a boat which has proven itself for over 30 years, enduring the many torture tests I have listed. Mid ocean in such a boat is the safest place on the planet to be. >> | 25086|25082|2011-01-26 21:59:53|Ben Okopnik|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:37:59AM -0000, ve7vmt2001 wrote: > I seem to recall that Lucas were responsible for the electronics on > the space shuttle, anyone confirm this? Lucas was not involved in the STS. I would have been amazed to learn that _any_ non-US company was involved, in fact, since the US space effort was very much a motivational media campaign in addition to its other, more obvious benefits; one of the most stirring speeches given in front of the American public (President John F. Kennedy at Rice University) was intended to promote the space effort, to motivate the best and the brightest to aim for scientific and engineering careers. It created a tremendous amount of technical capability in this country - that's where those little pockets of brilliance I mentioned came from... but all those people who made up that bright generation with whom I had the great privilege of working are aging and retiring, and there are no replacements. Science is hard, and without a strong motivation to pursue it, most people aren't going to stay the course. Clueless political maneuvering and wrangling killed the space program, and certainly the vision and the spirit that were an inseparable part of it. In stark contrast to the 60s and the 70s, we're now the world's largest consumer, and not much of a producer of anything. Well, hey - being good at Nintendo is as valid a life choice as a science degree, right? OOOPS... I must have accidentally tripped my rant switch. Let me flip it back off before I start sounding like a bitter old man. ...but this sure used to be a great country. We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours. [...] We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. -- President John F. Kennedy, Rice University Stadium, 9/12/1962 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| 25087|25015|2011-01-26 22:21:23|James Pronk|Re: Banned ,two more times|So Tom How is your boat coming? Do you have any photos of the work so far? Thank you, James --- On Tue, 1/25/11, Tom Mann wrote: From: Tom Mann Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Banned ,two more times To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 9:48 PM   Well not much to say there Brent I'm not going to get in a pissin match with you. But you did just make my point about talking to us like were stupid. Tom On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:57 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > Tom > When I asked you why you were not using origami for your next boat, you > told me "Because I like doing metal work. The more work the more fun." or > words to that effect. > I've only had one other client who said he was disappointed when all the > metal work was finished, as he was enjoying it so much. > Given my experience of the last 35 years of helping people get their metal > boats together, most simply want to get out cruising , as quickly and > painlessly as possible. That is what my building methods are all aimed at, > not for fun and games for those who love metal work, and who would rather > be building than sailing. > On another site I was told that none of my boats exist, they are all a > figment of my imagination. I was simultaneously called a scammer and > criticized for not charging enough. It has been suggested that I have a > structural analysis done by someone who stated that shape has no effect on > strength, who said that a piece of mylar held in the hands and bent , > behaves the same structurally, as a longitudinal welded inside a hull. > Neither Tom nor anyone else challenged this statement. When I suggested > that a round or oval mast is far stronger than a flat piece of plate made > of the same material I was told "Prove it", something Tom never challenged. > My statements of fact, which disprove such comments, are frequently deleted. > I understand Tom is building a 37 footer using the framed method. I have > asked him to keep me posted on how far along he is and the number of hours > involved. No response. > I have suggested that 30 years of offshore cruising in some of the most > extreme conditions is a far more relevant than any amount of calculations > on any untried boats . Dudley Dix agreed. After that and his praising > Ganley designs , he got so much hate mail he quit that chatline and has > never gone back. When I mentioned one of my 36 footers spending 16 days > pounding on a Baja lee shore in 8 to 12 fit surf and being winched off thu > the same surf ,being picked up and dropped every wave for the first quarter > mile ,with no serious structural damage , I was called a liar. When the > friend who sailed her back to BC right after that incident confirmed it , > he too was called a liar. When he posted pictures of the incident, he > started receiving weird and threatening emails over it. > Calculations are like tomorrows weather forecast. 30 years experience in > sometimes extreme conditions is like yesterdays weather record. Which is > more reliable? > It has been suggested than my non bureaucrat approved boats , which have > withstood 16 days of pounding in heavy surf, a collision with a freighter, T > boning a steel barge at hull speed, pounding across 300 yards of Fijian > coral reef ,a single season passage thru the NW passage, and 30 years of > offshore cruising in all conditions,without a single structural failure of > any kind at sea, are not strong enough, but a bureaucrat approved fibreglass > or wooden boat, which would break up in minutes in the same conditions is > strong enough because it is bureaucrat approved. > It's been suggested that boats which have cruised 30 years without a single > structural failure at sea, may have structural failures in the first four > hours , if it is not bureaucrat approved. > On another site it was suggested by a guy claiming to be an engineer that > math is critical while demonstrating an inability to count to 14. He is > still there. It was suggested that I get my advice from him. > These are the arguments that Tom has been supporting ,or certainly not > questioning. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" > wrote: > > > > I didn't say that on any of those sites, just pointed out that what has > worked well for 30 years has been proven far beyond any calculation could > ever disprove. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > > > > > I didn't know you got banned there Brent, your still on the list > > > Building boats is just like building anything else several ways to go > about > > > it . > > > Just because something is simple does not mean it the best way or the > only > > > way > > > to do it. > > > Minumum scantling rules are there for a reason, you can follow them > or not > > > on your own > > > boat, If you choose not does not mean they are stupid and out dated and > if I > > > or anyone else decides to follow them does not make us stupid. > > > If I pick a design that is framed using 1/8" skins that has a hull > shape > > > that I like that follows the minimum scantlings and actualy comes out a > bit > > > lighter than framless. Does this mean I > > > am stupid? > > > You would not get banned if you didn't use the Brent Swain way or the > > > highway approach with the little remarks that you throw in that in a > round > > > about way mean that we are stupid for > > > not following your way. > > > Nuff said > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:14 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > > > I just got baned form two more sites for telling people of simpler > and less > > > > expensive ways of doing things, from Metalboatsociety.org and > > > > metalboatbuilding.org . The straw that broke the camels back was me > > > > suggesting that a simple ss pipe nipple welded in was all that was > needed > > > > for thru hulls, instead of a complex arrangement of mild steel pipes, > bolts > > > > and flanges. > > > > I was told that I was not allowed to disagree with anyone , but > anyone > > > > else on the site is allowed to disagree with me. If two people > disagree with > > > > one another, I'm only allowed to agree with both of them. > > > > There appears to be a concerted effort to throw as many > disinformation > > > > hurdles as possible in front of people attempting to do their own > work, to > > > > try and make commercial operations more relevant . I've been told > that > > > > designers are hurting for lack of business, and wherever they go > they see > > > > far more of my designs than their own. I've been told that when my > clients > > > > go to a commercial rigger, and are asked what they are building, they > say "A > > > > Brent Swain design." They respond with " Another one of those > assholes, who > > > > build all their own gear, and buy nothing." So they resort to > censorship, an > > > > admission that their arguments cant stand the test of an open > debate. > > > > They are trying to censor out any information that there is any > > > > alternative but the expensive solutions they are trying to sell . > > > > I would appreciate it if some of you ( the more the better ) would go > to > > > > those sites and post the warning > > > > "Anyone caught disagreeing with any of these posts will be > banned. We > > > > are her to promote orthodoxy, not to advance boat building." > > > > Thanks . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > 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@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25088|25015|2011-01-26 22:30:20|James Pronk|Re: Banned ,two more times|Mat I do not see how, with this post, Brent is talking to us like we are stupid. Is it the fact that Brent is calling you out that is upsetting for you? James --- On Tue, 1/25/11, brentswain38 wrote: From: brentswain38 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Banned ,two more times To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 6:57 PM   Tom When I asked you why you were not using origami for your next boat, you told me "Because I like doing metal work. The more work the more fun." or words to that effect. I've only had one other client who said he was disappointed when all the metal work was finished, as he was enjoying it so much. Given my experience of the last 35 years of helping people get their metal boats together, most simply want to get out cruising , as quickly and painlessly as possible. That is what my building methods are all aimed at, not for fun and games for those who love metal work, and who would rather be building than sailing. On another site I was told that none of my boats exist, they are all a figment of my imagination. I was simultaneously called a scammer and criticized for not charging enough. It has been suggested that I have a structural analysis done by someone who stated that shape has no effect on strength, who said that a piece of mylar held in the hands and bent , behaves the same structurally, as a longitudinal welded inside a hull. Neither Tom nor anyone else challenged this statement. When I suggested that a round or oval mast is far stronger than a flat piece of plate made of the same material I was told "Prove it", something Tom never challenged. My statements of fact, which disprove such comments, are frequently deleted. I understand Tom is building a 37 footer using the framed method. I have asked him to keep me posted on how far along he is and the number of hours involved. No response. I have suggested that 30 years of offshore cruising in some of the most extreme conditions is a far more relevant than any amount of calculations on any untried boats . Dudley Dix agreed. After that and his praising Ganley designs , he got so much hate mail he quit that chatline and has never gone back. When I mentioned one of my 36 footers spending 16 days pounding on a Baja lee shore in 8 to 12 fit surf and being winched off thu the same surf ,being picked up and dropped every wave for the first quarter mile ,with no serious structural damage , I was called a liar. When the friend who sailed her back to BC right after that incident confirmed it , he too was called a liar. When he posted pictures of the incident, he started receiving weird and threatening emails over it. Calculations are like tomorrows weather forecast. 30 years experience in sometimes extreme conditions is like yesterdays weather record. Which is more reliable? It has been suggested than my non bureaucrat approved boats , which have withstood 16 days of pounding in heavy surf, a collision with a freighter, T boning a steel barge at hull speed, pounding across 300 yards of Fijian coral reef ,a single season passage thru the NW passage, and 30 years of offshore cruising in all conditions,without a single structural failure of any kind at sea, are not strong enough, but a bureaucrat approved fibreglass or wooden boat, which would break up in minutes in the same conditions is strong enough because it is bureaucrat approved. It's been suggested that boats which have cruised 30 years without a single structural failure at sea, may have structural failures in the first four hours , if it is not bureaucrat approved. On another site it was suggested by a guy claiming to be an engineer that math is critical while demonstrating an inability to count to 14. He is still there. It was suggested that I get my advice from him. These are the arguments that Tom has been supporting ,or certainly not questioning. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I didn't say that on any of those sites, just pointed out that what has worked well for 30 years has been proven far beyond any calculation could ever disprove. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > > > I didn't know you got banned there Brent, your still on the list > > Building boats is just like building anything else several ways to go about > > it . > > Just because something is simple does not mean it the best way or the only > > way > > to do it. > > Minumum scantling rules are there for a reason, you can follow them or not > > on your own > > boat, If you choose not does not mean they are stupid and out dated and if I > > or anyone else decides to follow them does not make us stupid. > > If I pick a design that is framed using 1/8" skins that has a hull shape > > that I like that follows the minimum scantlings and actualy comes out a bit > > lighter than framless. Does this mean I > > am stupid? > > You would not get banned if you didn't use the Brent Swain way or the > > highway approach with the little remarks that you throw in that in a round > > about way mean that we are stupid for > > not following your way. > > Nuff said > > Tom > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:14 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > I just got baned form two more sites for telling people of simpler and less > > > expensive ways of doing things, from Metalboatsociety.org and > > > metalboatbuilding.org . The straw that broke the camels back was me > > > suggesting that a simple ss pipe nipple welded in was all that was needed > > > for thru hulls, instead of a complex arrangement of mild steel pipes, bolts > > > and flanges. > > > I was told that I was not allowed to disagree with anyone , but anyone > > > else on the site is allowed to disagree with me. If two people disagree with > > > one another, I'm only allowed to agree with both of them. > > > There appears to be a concerted effort to throw as many disinformation > > > hurdles as possible in front of people attempting to do their own work, to > > > try and make commercial operations more relevant . I've been told that > > > designers are hurting for lack of business, and wherever they go they see > > > far more of my designs than their own. I've been told that when my clients > > > go to a commercial rigger, and are asked what they are building, they say "A > > > Brent Swain design." They respond with " Another one of those assholes, who > > > build all their own gear, and buy nothing." So they resort to censorship, an > > > admission that their arguments cant stand the test of an open debate. > > > They are trying to censor out any information that there is any > > > alternative but the expensive solutions they are trying to sell . > > > I would appreciate it if some of you ( the more the better ) would go to > > > those sites and post the warning > > > "Anyone caught disagreeing with any of these posts will be banned. We > > > are her to promote orthodoxy, not to advance boat building." > > > Thanks . > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > 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] | 25089|25015|2011-01-26 23:24:11|Matt Malone|Re: Banned ,two more times|>To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >From: brentswain38@... >Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:23:11 +0000 >Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Banned ,two more times > >"Anything discontinuous causes unsolvable equations" pretty well sums up the irrelevance of orthodox ways of calculating things. I should have said, as unsolvable as exact, explicitly-written down equations. With computers, masses of equations are used, as finite elements or finite differences or other schemes. These equations, over little bits, are proven to converge to consistent solutions. So even if one curve cannot be written as one equation in pages of calculus, the solution can be made up of a lot of little equations over pieces of the solution. And this only if one attempts a complete solution mathematical solution. There are many other forms of quantitative analysis. There are many approximate methods for everything. So to say irrelevant is not quite fair. >I don't think minor changes in hull shape will change the basic principles which give origami hulls their well proven toughness. This line of thinking is one often used in science, little changes lead to little differences. This works really well for linear things, and mainly linear things, and particularly for little changes. But shells are not linear, nothing about them is. And what might seem like a little change might lead to a big change. To get an idea what things look like in a shell, an effect called photoelasticity is really helpful. From the Wikipedia page: "The method is mostly used in cases where mathematical methods become quite cumbersome." http://www.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=photoelasticity&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1457&bih=881 It is hard to describe how it works (Wikipedia does an OK job), but, basically, the patterns show patterns of stress or strain in a material. If you have ever caught a glimpse of photoelasticity in person, it was probably with a thin plastic ruler. Bend it an you get some neat patterns. However twist, bend and pull it at the same time and very rapidly the patterns get quite complex. Make a shell and it gets even more complex, with periodic patterns emerging, like waves. One can imagine, if the waves line up with a strong point, this is good. If they line up with a not-so-strong point, well not so good. Adding stiffeners makes it really complicated. What seem like small changes can make some very complex patterns of stress. >When I had a lawyer draw up a builders contract, he asked me about liability. I told him about the torture >tests the boats had endured, long before even more extreme torture tests had been survived, and he said >"That covers you completely , far better than anything else possibly could." Other lawyers specializing in >civil suits have since confirmed his opinion. Anecdotes work well provided they are first hand, and the people are around to testify. Other documents might be important to have, like maybe ship's log books, extensive photographs and the person who took the photographs. I hope your lawyers asked you to get all that stuff properly documented. >Your engineering students wouldn't be doing anything the sea hasn't already done, and tested , in real conditions. Well, actually they would, by documenting carefully controlled tests so they would know exactly what they are testing. Documentation is the cornerstone of getting the document to say it is certified. After the boat is off the rock, and after the crowd is dispersed, and the sailors go off to other things and the anecdotes are second-hand and inadmissible, documentation remains. It is not a question of whether the engineers would put the boat through something different, or if anyone here has an expectation that it would not pass any portion of any tests. It is a question of allowing them to go through the exercise to produce expert reports supporting an application for certification. That is all. It is a step on the path, like a drivers test. Maybe 95% of the time it seems a bother and expense, but if you want the piece of paper, you have to do the test. Luckily, Brent does not have to certify anything. But conversely, without that piece of paper, it is a lot easier for others to exercise their right to to be uninformed and dismissive. It is the price one pays, and the advantage of certification. We are here by choice, we choose to be informed. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25090|25015|2011-01-26 23:27:32|Matt Malone|Re: Banned ,two more times|> Many have suggested that every word that comes out of my mouth is a lie. Those posts were never deleted. Sounds like libel to me. Their only positive defence is the truth. If you know the truth is on your side, and it is hurting your business, then, time for the lawyers maybe. Fair is fair. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25091|25015|2011-01-27 00:14:34|wild_explorer|Re: Banned ,two more times|Matt, is it possible to use Gaussian curvature as a measurement of origami hull's strength?| 25092|25082|2011-01-27 03:32:43|Giuseppe Bergman|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|I would be greatly surprised if there should occur a progress like "going to the moon" (or any other significant process) without a radicaly risen awareness for a new, much more collective sort of United States as a part of a collective world. The current situation in contrast totally disables any idea of scientific excellence, because literally nobody does see any reason for any of the inevitable and personal efforts in today's United States . The former American dream "anything goes" is dead when it comes to the participation in social and economic prosperity just through hard work and brilliant ideas, regardless of which racial, national or social background You initially might have come from before freely applying for the scientific studies or jobs a free and progressive society is proud to offer to their most recent newbees. Instead the States build silly walls like we used to have one in Germany, like anotherone can be admired in the middle of Korea, like one divides Nikosia/Cypros and anotherone cutting through Palestine ... Am 27.01.2011 um 03:59 schrieb Ben Okopnik: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:37:59AM -0000, ve7vmt2001 wrote: > > I seem to recall that Lucas were responsible for the electronics on > > the space shuttle, anyone confirm this? > > Lucas was not involved in the STS. I would have been amazed to learn > that _any_ non-US company was involved, in fact, since the US space > effort was very much a motivational media campaign in addition to its > other, more obvious benefits; one of the most stirring speeches given in > front of the American public (President John F. Kennedy at Rice > University) was intended to promote the space effort, to motivate the > best and the brightest to aim for scientific and engineering careers. It > created a tremendous amount of technical capability in this country - > that's where those little pockets of brilliance I mentioned came from... > but all those people who made up that bright generation with whom I had > the great privilege of working are aging and retiring, and there are no > replacements. Science is hard, and without a strong motivation to pursue > it, most people aren't going to stay the course. > > Clueless political maneuvering and wrangling killed the space program, > and certainly the vision and the spirit that were an inseparable part of > it. In stark contrast to the 60s and the 70s, we're now the world's > largest consumer, and not much of a producer of anything. Well, hey - > being good at Nintendo is as valid a life choice as a science degree, > right? > > OOOPS... I must have accidentally tripped my rant switch. Let me flip it > back off before I start sounding like a bitter old man. > > ...but this sure used to be a great country. > > We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be > gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the > progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all > technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force > for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a > position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will > be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the > we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any > more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but > I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the > fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in > extending his writ around this globe of ours. > > [...] We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this > decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because > they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the > best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we > are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which > we intend to win, and the others, too. > > -- President John F. Kennedy, Rice University Stadium, 9/12/1962 > > 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]| 25093|25015|2011-01-27 07:12:59|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Banned ,two more times|I couldn´t agree more. These are the same idiots who think insurances and AIS (active) and radar all ought to be compulsory. And having the financial clout to pay other idiots do inspect all that ought to be compulsory for owning a boat. Makes me want to throw up. My long post was meant to illustrate that regulations can be followed, and approvals can be gained, by application of some effort and or creativity. It is not all that hard, nor necessarily all that expensive. However, usually what the bureaucratic crowd think is the way to do it, is both expensive and hard, and very often silly. The problem is that there's too many of the other kind, who'd have their hand up in a flash. I've talked to a number of idiots whose automatic response to anything like that, including infants being frisked by the TSA, is "WELL, IF IT MAKES US ALL SAFER, I'M FOR IT!" Made me feel like throwing up. Ben| 25094|25063|2011-01-27 08:09:42|ka0tp|Re: thru hull for galley sink|It depends on the height of your sink above or below the waterline. My old Bayliner cabin cruiser drains the Kitchen sink about a foot above the water line. Fot the any Sailboat, you have to make sure to figure in your heeling. More than one boat has discovered sink drain issues while on a steep heel. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Linus" wrote: > > Hey, > I have been following this group for almost a year. Although at the moment I have a fiberglass boat (1978 Hunter/Cherubini 33), I like the common sense (why waste money) approach to boats you guys have. > > My question is this, is the 1-1/2" below water line hole in my boat that us only used to drain water from the galley sink to the outside really the best solution to getting rid of the used water? The sea cock currently there is a "Home Store" brass gate valve that is frozen and needs to be replaced asap. I plan to haul her out next month and was wondering if there was a viable solution that would allow me to just re-fiberglass that hole. > | 25095|25015|2011-01-27 08:37:04|Tom Mann|Re: Banned ,two more times|James that was me that made that statement not Mat, See below On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:30 PM, James Pronk wrote: > Mat > I do not see how, with this post, Brent is talking to us like we are > stupid. Is it the fact that Brent is calling you out that is upsetting for > you? > James > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mann wrote: > > > > > > I didn't know you got banned there Brent, your still on the list > > > Building boats is just like building anything else several ways to go > about > > > it . > > > Just because something is simple does not mean it the best way or the > only > > > way > > > to do it. > > > Minumum scantling rules are there for a reason, you can follow them or > not > > > on your own > > > boat, If you choose not does not mean they are stupid and out dated and > if I > > > or anyone else decides to follow them does not make us stupid. > > > If I pick a design that is framed using 1/8" skins that has a hull > shape > > > that I like that follows the minimum scantlings and actualy comes out a > bit > > > lighter than framless. Does this mean I > > > am stupid? > > > You would not get banned if you didn't use the Brent Swain way or the > > > highway approach with the little remarks that you throw in that in a > round > > > about way mean that we are stupid for > > > not following your way. > > > Nuff said > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 25096|25096|2011-01-27 11:01:12|Ben Okopnik|[notify@yahoogroups.com: New origamiboats member]|Just wanted to share this with the group: ----- Forwarded message from Yahoo! Groups Notification ----- Date: 27 Jan 2011 15:00:52 -0000 From: Yahoo! Groups Notification To: origamiboats-owner@yahoogroups.com Subject: New origamiboats member Sender: origamiboats-owner@yahoogroups.com Hello, This is an automated email message to let you know that marelyn_monroe joined your origamiboats group. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Don't whistle, boys; it's not polite. And wipe your chins. If Marilyn wants to learn origami, who are we to say no? [ Note: new members are automatically on moderation, so if they happen to turn out to be spammers, they get eliminated without any fuss in the group. I'm sure it doesn't apply to a famous star like Miss Norma Jeane here, but I'm just sayin.' :) ] 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| 25097|25082|2011-01-27 11:25:35|BrdbMc@aol.com|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|Hi I am really amazed at some of the statements made ,what is really a worry is that educated people are making and believing them. In Europe the space race as it was called was seen as a battle of ideologies and it did stop both sides blowing each other up. I seam to remember that it was German scientiest that became the core of USA rocket design. In Britain we went through a period referred to as the brain drain,were scientist and engineers were attracted by the dollar .I wonder how many worked on the moon project. As for Lucas being responsible for some of the electronics,not sure but I bet some of their patents were. Mikeafloat -----Original Message----- From: Giuseppe Bergman To: origamiboats Sent: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 8:32 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Lucas. No Origami content. I would be greatly surprised if there should occur a progress ike "going to the moon" (or any other significant process) without a radicaly isen awareness for a new, much more collective sort of United States as a art of a collective world. The current situation in contrast totally disables any idea of scientific xcellence, because literally nobody does see any reason for ny of the inevitable and personal efforts in today's United States . The former American dream "anything goes" is dead when it comes o the participation in social and economic prosperity just through ard work and brilliant ideas, regardless of which racial, national or ocial background You initially might have come from efore freely applying for the scientific studies or jobs a free and progressive society is proud to offer to their most recent newbees. Instead the States build silly walls like we used to have one in Germany, like notherone can be admired in the middle of Korea, like one ivides Nikosia/Cypros and anotherone cutting through Palestine ... m 27.01.2011 um 03:59 schrieb Ben Okopnik: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:37:59AM -0000, ve7vmt2001 wrote: > I seem to recall that Lucas were responsible for the electronics on > the space shuttle, anyone confirm this? Lucas was not involved in the STS. I would have been amazed to learn that _any_ non-US company was involved, in fact, since the US space effort was very much a motivational media campaign in addition to its other, more obvious benefits; one of the most stirring speeches given in front of the American public (President John F. Kennedy at Rice University) was intended to promote the space effort, to motivate the best and the brightest to aim for scientific and engineering careers. It created a tremendous amount of technical capability in this country - that's where those little pockets of brilliance I mentioned came from... but all those people who made up that bright generation with whom I had the great privilege of working are aging and retiring, and there are no replacements. Science is hard, and without a strong motivation to pursue it, most people aren't going to stay the course. Clueless political maneuvering and wrangling killed the space program, and certainly the vision and the spirit that were an inseparable part of it. In stark contrast to the 60s and the 70s, we're now the world's largest consumer, and not much of a producer of anything. Well, hey - being good at Nintendo is as valid a life choice as a science degree, right? OOOPS... I must have accidentally tripped my rant switch. Let me flip it back off before I start sounding like a bitter old man. ...but this sure used to be a great country. We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours. [...] We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. -- President John F. Kennedy, Rice University Stadium, 9/12/1962 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]| 25098|25015|2011-01-27 11:36:16|Matt Malone|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Wild, I think I know what you mean. I think what you are overlooking is modes of failure. I think the over all curvature will give you an idea of over all buckling, and this is only valid without reinforcing stringers. Another pattern of failure, such as a local buckle or a pattern of buckling between stringers would have to be considered. And also, since the boat is not an ellipsoid, its curvature properties change a lot from one area to another. Such curvature-based calculations can give estimates perhaps of initial stiffness. In a failure buckling condition, with a small change in geometry, the local incremental stiffness goes to zero, and buckling initiates. Here is an experiment: put two empty pop cans on a really sturdy bench. Carefully pile weight on one of them, like maybe 50 pounds, so it is near collapse. Glue the other one to the top of the bench, without any weight on it. Very carefully, not with your finger, very gently probe the side of the two cans to feel their stiffness against just beginning to dent inward. Do the unloaded one first. It is quite possible when you touch the loaded one a very rapid and apparently unexpected collapse will occur. Just before it collapsed, you should have noted that it was a lot "softer", less resistant to being probed. Both cans have precisely the same curvature properties. The difference is preload stress. Stresses induced in pulling and welding an orgami together are not negligible -- after all one has pulled the sheet together and plasticly deformed the metal. If the entire hull could be stress-relieved, after manufacture, I am sure there would be a lot less uncertainty among engineers. Going back to the two cans, if one could tap them with a very thin piece of stainless steel wire (single strand picture frame wire?) one would note that the glued-down can would make a higher pitched "tink" sound, and the loaded can, a lower pitched "tonk" sound. As incremental stiffness goes down, the resonant frequency of that part of the can goes down too. Buckling happens when the frequency goes to zero, and instead of the surface oscillating, it diverges. All very cool mathematics. BTW, if one pressurized the can, that preload would cause a higher pitched sound, and would make it more resistant to buckling from end-wise compression. The thing of practical interest is, tapping an orgami hull with a hammer can find areas that might be under pre-load -- either causing them to give a higher or lower pitched sound. Note, one is looking for the initial sound, not the sound as the energy from the tap spreads out like the ripples in a pond. Tapping at seams and stiffeners can only be compared to areas of similar geometry. So tapping down the length of a seam is informative, tapping along the hull along the length of where the stiffener is welded is informative, and tapping over the area of the hull away from all these discontinuities is informative. Unfortunately, for shells the largest stresses often result from line forces and torques along the seams that lead to waves of stress radiating from loaded seams. Still, a hammer and a good ear will at least tell you something. If you find two areas with vastly different sounds, close together, and away from any discontinuities, I would sure call that an area of interest. The duller, lower frequency area might be a candidate for more stiffening, but remember, the stress pattern completely changes when the boat is loaded differently. So tapping it while it is on the hard, sitting on its twin keels will give different results from tapping when it is in the water. Just to one has an idea of what sound means: Freq = sqrt( K / m ) Where K has sort of a generic stiffness meaning, and m is the mass that is vibrating, in the middle of a sheet is is proportional to the mass per unit area of the sheet. When tapping, if the frequency of the sound drops by 1 octave, that is a factor of 2 in frequency, then the stiffness has dropped by a factor of 4 or to 25% of its former value. When it reaches 0% that is when buckling is possible. If you can, take an opportunity to tap on a musical steel drum to get an idea of the what I am talking about. Anyway, for a shell, for areas that are in all other respects equal, having a frequency difference of an octave is a lot. I really am trying to give a back-yard-useful explanation. Anyone building an orgami, still just welding, I would be interested to hear what you heard tapping close-by the middle seam, from brest (between the keels) to bow. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 05:14:25 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Banned ,two more times Matt, is it possible to use Gaussian curvature as a measurement of origami hull's strength? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25099|25015|2011-01-27 12:05:45|Ben Okopnik|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:36:15AM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > Such curvature-based calculations can give estimates perhaps of > initial stiffness. In a failure buckling condition, with a small > change in geometry, the local incremental stiffness goes to zero, and > buckling initiates. Here is an experiment: put two empty pop cans on > a really sturdy bench. Carefully pile weight on one of them, like > maybe 50 pounds, so it is near collapse. Glue the other one to the > top of the bench, without any weight on it. Very carefully, not with > your finger, very gently probe the side of the two cans to feel their > stiffness against just beginning to dent inward. Do the unloaded one > first. It is quite possible when you touch the loaded one a very > rapid and apparently unexpected collapse will occur. Just before it > collapsed, you should have noted that it was a lot "softer", less > resistant to being probed. Both cans have precisely the same > curvature properties. The difference is preload stress. Incidentally, I just want to mention: Matt, I've been enjoying your posts quite a lot, and learning a good bit as well. Thanks very much! 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| 25100|25015|2011-01-27 12:43:55|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Very nice simple explanation Matt. I can see the problem why people questioning "Origami". It is very complex subject and simple at the same time. It is not the question if it is "good" or "bad". The question here "HOW GOOD" it is? Brent repeatedly saying about importance of the shape (using "pop cans", egg_shape, etc. examples). Not so many people pay attention to it. WE ARE NOT talking about Brent's design at this point - we are talking about "Origami hull" concept in GENERAL. When I joined this group, I felt that "origami hull" concept has a LOT of potential. It even looks good from "common sense" point of view. Most people feel it on this level, but would like to see some proofs. I can see why fiberglass hulls are so popular. It allows to gain strength of the hull using strength of the shape. Nobody question fiberglass boats. But when it comes to metal hull, lot of questions suddenly pop-up. And I am not saying that there is no need for structural analysis, but it should apply in both cases (fiberglass and metal). Importance of Brent's idea is that he was able to apply it to metal hull. The complexity of the shape makes it hard to apply regular methods of hull shape strength estimates. It is possible with 3D geometry. And we are talking about "ESTIMATES", not full strength analysis. It should be enough for most people to make informed decisions. Standard metal hull building procedure need to rely on geometrically strong frames. Simply because flat plates are used and these plates contribute limited amount of strength to the hull. It easier to estimate strength of the hull built by standard methods. Using 3D, it is possible to visualize strength, see possible problem areas in origami hull and correct it if necessary. This approach might not be perfect, but it is a start of "documenting" origami hull concept. There are lot of publications on 3D geometry and estimation of surface strength base on Gaussian curvature method. But they are mostly academical, not practical type. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > Wild, I think I know what you mean. I think what you are overlooking is modes of failure. I think the over all curvature will give you an idea of over all buckling, and this is only valid without reinforcing stringers. Another pattern of failure, such as a local buckle or a pattern of buckling between stringers would have to be considered. And also, since the boat is not an ellipsoid, its curvature properties change a lot from one area to another. > > Such curvature-based calculations can give estimates perhaps of initial stiffness. In a failure buckling condition, with a small change in geometry, the local incremental stiffness goes to zero, and buckling initiates. Here is an experiment: put two empty pop cans on a really sturdy bench. Carefully pile weight on one of them, like maybe 50 pounds, so it is near collapse. Glue the other one to the top of the bench, without any weight on it. Very carefully, not with your finger, very gently probe the side of the two cans to feel their stiffness against just beginning to dent inward. Do the unloaded one first. It is quite possible when you touch the loaded one a very rapid and apparently unexpected collapse will occur. Just before it collapsed, you should have noted that it was a lot "softer", less resistant to being probed. Both cans have precisely the same curvature properties. The difference is preload stress. > > Stresses induced in pulling and welding an orgami together are not negligible -- after all one has pulled the sheet together and plasticly deformed the metal. If the entire hull could be stress-relieved, after manufacture, I am sure there would be a lot less uncertainty among engineers. > > Going back to the two cans, if one could tap them with a very thin piece of stainless steel wire (single strand picture frame wire?) one would note that the glued-down can would make a higher pitched "tink" sound, and the loaded can, a lower pitched "tonk" sound. As incremental stiffness goes down, the resonant frequency of that part of the can goes down too. Buckling happens when the frequency goes to zero, and instead of the surface oscillating, it diverges. All very cool mathematics. BTW, if one pressurized the can, that preload would cause a higher pitched sound, and would make it more resistant to buckling from end-wise compression. > > The thing of practical interest is, tapping an orgami hull with a hammer can find areas that might be under pre-load -- either causing them to give a higher or lower pitched sound. Note, one is looking for the initial sound, not the sound as the energy from the tap spreads out like the ripples in a pond. Tapping at seams and stiffeners can only be compared to areas of similar geometry. So tapping down the length of a seam is informative, tapping along the hull along the length of where the stiffener is welded is informative, and tapping over the area of the hull away from all these discontinuities is informative. Unfortunately, for shells the largest stresses often result from line forces and torques along the seams that lead to waves of stress radiating from loaded seams. Still, a hammer and a good ear will at least tell you something. If you find two areas with vastly different sounds, close together, and away from any discontinuities, I would sure call that an area of interest. The duller, lower frequency area might be a candidate for more stiffening, but remember, the stress pattern completely changes when the boat is loaded differently. So tapping it while it is on the hard, sitting on its twin keels will give different results from tapping when it is in the water. Just to one has an idea of what sound means: > > Freq = sqrt( K / m ) > > Where K has sort of a generic stiffness meaning, and m is the mass that is vibrating, in the middle of a sheet is is proportional to the mass per unit area of the sheet. When tapping, if the frequency of the sound drops by 1 octave, that is a factor of 2 in frequency, then the stiffness has dropped by a factor of 4 or to 25% of its former value. When it reaches 0% that is when buckling is possible. If you can, take an opportunity to tap on a musical steel drum to get an idea of the what I am talking about. Anyway, for a shell, for areas that are in all other respects equal, having a frequency difference of an octave is a lot. > > I really am trying to give a back-yard-useful explanation. Anyone building an orgami, still just welding, I would be interested to hear what you heard tapping close-by the middle seam, from brest (between the keels) to bow. > > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: williswildest@... > Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 05:14:25 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Banned ,two more times > > > > Matt, is it possible to use Gaussian curvature as a measurement of origami hull's strength? > | 25101|25082|2011-01-27 13:04:04|Giuseppe Bergman|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|The brain drain is something we recognise as an increasing occurrence in Germany as well these days, lawyers and engineers and a whole lot of medical doctors are quitting Germany not only because of the partly ridiculous wages You earn after five to ten years of learning hard, but for some other sort of social citizenship they want to achieve. During the ideological space race the brains were the excellent parts of the one or the other system coining the respective integral societies from engineer to scavenger. Today there is no such thing like "us" and "them" in a sort of two rancorously competing sides, inwardly showing solidarity though. Today furthermore you do not make money (and often not even a decent living) with nor excellent ideas neither with hard work, but todays tools to gain noteworthy amounts of money usually are fraudulent international stockmarket schemes, premediative devaluating worldwide salaries and wages, fatally reckless exploitation of resources or beeing "to big to fail" with all the primarily named offensive elements together. Am 27.01.2011 um 17:25 schrieb BrdbMc@...: > > Hi > I am really amazed at some of the statements made ,what is really a worry is that educated people are making and believing them. > In Europe the space race as it was called was seen as a battle of ideologies and it did stop both sides blowing each other up. I seam to remember that it was German scientiest that became the core of USA rocket design. > > In Britain we went through a period referred to as the brain drain,were scientist and engineers were attracted by the dollar .I wonder how many worked on the moon project. > > As for Lucas being responsible for some of the electronics,not sure but I bet some of their patents were. > > Mikeafloat > > -----Original Message----- > From: Giuseppe Bergman > To: origamiboats > Sent: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 8:32 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Lucas. No Origami content. > > I would be greatly surprised if there should occur a progress > ike "going to the moon" (or any other significant process) without a radicaly > isen awareness for a new, much more collective sort of United States as a > art of a collective world. > The current situation in contrast totally disables any idea of scientific > xcellence, because literally nobody does see any reason for > ny of the inevitable and personal efforts in today's United States . > The former American dream "anything goes" is dead when it comes > o the participation in social and economic prosperity just through > ard work and brilliant ideas, regardless of which racial, national or > ocial background You initially might have come from > efore freely applying for the scientific studies or jobs a free and progressive > society is proud to offer to their most recent newbees. > Instead the States build silly walls like we used to have one in Germany, like > notherone can be admired in the middle of Korea, like one > ivides Nikosia/Cypros and anotherone cutting through Palestine ... > > m 27.01.2011 um 03:59 schrieb Ben Okopnik: > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:37:59AM -0000, ve7vmt2001 wrote: > > I seem to recall that Lucas were responsible for the electronics on > > the space shuttle, anyone confirm this? > > Lucas was not involved in the STS. I would have been amazed to learn > that _any_ non-US company was involved, in fact, since the US space > effort was very much a motivational media campaign in addition to its > other, more obvious benefits; one of the most stirring speeches given in > front of the American public (President John F. Kennedy at Rice > University) was intended to promote the space effort, to motivate the > best and the brightest to aim for scientific and engineering careers. It > created a tremendous amount of technical capability in this country - > that's where those little pockets of brilliance I mentioned came from... > but all those people who made up that bright generation with whom I had > the great privilege of working are aging and retiring, and there are no > replacements. Science is hard, and without a strong motivation to pursue > it, most people aren't going to stay the course. > > Clueless political maneuvering and wrangling killed the space program, > and certainly the vision and the spirit that were an inseparable part of > it. In stark contrast to the 60s and the 70s, we're now the world's > largest consumer, and not much of a producer of anything. Well, hey - > being good at Nintendo is as valid a life choice as a science degree, > right? > > OOOPS... I must have accidentally tripped my rant switch. Let me flip it > back off before I start sounding like a bitter old man. > > ...but this sure used to be a great country. > > We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be > gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the > progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all > technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force > for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a > position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will > be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the > we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any > more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but > I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the > fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in > extending his writ around this globe of ours. > > [...] We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this > decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because > they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the > best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we > are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which > we intend to win, and the others, too. > > -- President John F. Kennedy, Rice University Stadium, 9/12/1962 > > 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] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25102|25015|2011-01-27 13:44:02|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Matt, what K-number we need to look for? If I remember correctly: - Flat plate K=0. - The stronger shape with K=0 is cylinder. This is stronger shape standard boat building methods can rely on. They need to make other geometrical shapes from flat plates(around frames) to get desired hull stiffness. Strongest shape is a sphere. The shape close to it could be done by "origami". Can we use "flat plate" to "a sphere" scale strength, or is there some other scales?| 25103|25082|2011-01-27 13:50:42|wild_explorer|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|I am surprised that many people make a big deal about "space program". From "challenge" point of view, "deep ocean" exploration is more challenging than space. May be it is just not interesting from "militaristic" point of view for most governments? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Giuseppe Bergman wrote: > > I would be greatly surprised if there should occur a progress > like "going to the moon" | 25104|25015|2011-01-27 13:59:51|Matt Malone|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Wild, you said: >There are lot of publications on 3D geometry and estimation of surface strength >base on Gaussian curvature method. But they are mostly academical, not practical type. Can you provide links to the best introductory references ? Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25105|25015|2011-01-27 14:09:11|Matt Malone|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|That K is a "spring stiffness constant" -- K is used in most high school and first year physics textbooks. The equation was presented as a way to see how stiffness and frequency inter-relate, not to calculate absolute values. The K is depended on everything, thickness of the shell, curvatures, preloads everything. Think about a guitar string. Cranking the tensioner makes the frequency go up by increasing the effective stiffness of the string v.s. sideways displacement. If I am remembering correctly, the stiffness, even for something as simple as a guitar string is related in a relatively complex way to the pre-load tension. So, one is not looking for a particular value of "K", I think you have it confused with another quantity in some other equation. That was just to get to the point where the pitch of the tink the hammer made on the hull could be related to how close that area was to losing incremental local stiffness. Matt -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:43:53 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami Matt, what K-number we need to look for? If I remember correctly: - Flat plate K=0. - The stronger shape with K=0 is cylinder. This is stronger shape standard boat building methods can rely on. They need to make other geometrical shapes from flat plates(around frames) to get desired hull stiffness. Strongest shape is a sphere. The shape close to it could be done by "origami". Can we use "flat plate" to "a sphere" scale strength, or is there some other scales? _ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25106|25063|2011-01-27 15:59:54|scott|Re: thru hull for galley sink|In one of the pardys books or movies they talk about running all their grey water to a holding tank and then using the big manual bilge pump to pump it over board way above the waterline. Their thought is that they don't have a hole in the hull and that it makes them test the bilge pump on a regular basis to make sure it is working. Scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Linus" wrote: > > Hey, > I have been following this group for almost a year. Although at the moment I have a fiberglass boat (1978 Hunter/Cherubini 33), I like the common sense (why waste money) approach to boats you guys have. > > My question is this, is the 1-1/2" below water line hole in my boat that us only used to drain water from the galley sink to the outside really the best solution to getting rid of the used water? The sea cock currently there is a "Home Store" brass gate valve that is frozen and needs to be replaced asap. I plan to haul her out next month and was wondering if there was a viable solution that would allow me to just re-fiberglass that hole. > | 25107|25015|2011-01-27 16:08:58|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|My knowledge is very limited on this subject. I am looking at it only for couples of days. There are some publications on using Gaussian curvature method to identify developable surfaces for standard boat building method. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Mxt2HnsRnp8J:202.114.89.60/resource/pdf/698.pdf+strength+analysis+based+on+gaussian+curvature+for+metal+constructions&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESinXxnMm3SLBRshiCbzzolUuGs4knBveAGQULFBPYarA8CSuzaD795vMh1hBbTZAbBTk2ztaiskmfrJjMkKvigsoy9GZNs3MAFeqoGYmwRwrX0yilb5WmZzt4Yrx42ry3Pwk_7r&sig=AHIEtbTX8DFfLN16mfrj4N79KbfVw22Ufg But these programs provide non-zero K numbers as well. So far, I could not find much information/practical guide for usage of Non_Zero Gaussian curvature for structural strength estimate. It looks like it used sometimes in 3D-geometrically-shaped roof and bridge constructions. I will take a look again at files I saved. Nothing looks good for introductory references so far. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Wild, you said: > > >There are lot of publications on 3D geometry and estimation of surface > strength > >base on Gaussian curvature method. But they are mostly > academical, not practical type. > > Can you provide links to the best introductory references ? > > Matt | 25108|25082|2011-01-27 16:14:10|scott|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|I'm not so sure I agree with this.. I think part of the problem is that we have tried to become everything to everyone and be part of the collective world rather than just be ourselves. We have as society internally become so do no harm even accidentally or even think something that might possible 20 years from now harm something that we have just quit living and striving as a nation. We now apologise to nations, groups and ideologies that we fought against in the past to free people from. many of the groups that we have, are striving for identities that override their identity as Americans is a great example of everything to everyone and the fictionalisation of America. We are now everything but American and as a result are losing the spark of greatness that we had. At one point we were the great American melting pot... the sum of the whole was greater than the parts. Now we are splintering back up and the sum is becoming much less than the parts. We are becoming less. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Giuseppe Bergman wrote: > > I would be greatly surprised if there should occur a progress > like "going to the moon" (or any other significant process) without a radicaly > risen awareness for a new, much more collective sort of United States as a > part of a collective world. > > The current situation in contrast totally disables any idea of scientific > excellence, because literally nobody does see any reason for > any of the inevitable and personal efforts in today's United States . > > The former American dream "anything goes" is dead when it comes > to the participation in social and economic prosperity just through > hard work and brilliant ideas, regardless of which racial, national or > social background You initially might have come from > before freely applying for the scientific studies or jobs a free and progressive > society is proud to offer to their most recent newbees. > > Instead the States build silly walls like we used to have one in Germany, like > anotherone can be admired in the middle of Korea, like one > divides Nikosia/Cypros and anotherone cutting through Palestine ... > > > > > | 25109|25015|2011-01-27 16:31:34|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Matt, I may use incorrect reference (K number). Quote below is from the manual for one of 3D programs. Not sure how useful it would be for you, but... may be. At least I would like to know if this information could be used for hull's strength estimation. QUOTE: Gaussian curvature, used to check the fairness of a surface. The model is shaded in colors, based on the discrete Gaussian curvature in each point. Most hulls are curved in two directions, called the principal curvatures. Gaussian curvature is the product of these two principal curvatures. Now there are 3 possibilities here: • Negative Gaussian curvature. These areas are shaded blue and have the shape of a saddle, since the curvature in one direction is positive while the curvature in the other must be negative. • Zero Gaussian curvature. At least one of the two principal curvatures is zero, so the surface is either flat or curved in only one direction. In both cases the surface is developable (This is in fact a very important property of developable surfaces). These areas are shaded green. • Positive Gaussian curvature. The curvature in both directions can be positive or negative, but must have the same sign. These areas are convex or concave and shaded red. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > Can you provide links to the best introductory references ? > > Matt | 25110|25063|2011-01-27 16:35:55|William Munger|Re: thru hull for galley sink|I think I like this idea... I have a manual bilge pump located in the cockpit that I truly have never even tested. Thanks, that 1-1/2" below waterline hole just bothers me :-) and I just wanted to make sure I was not missing any "Real" reason to do it that way. William On 1/27/11 3:59 PM, scott wrote: > > In one of the pardys books or movies they talk about running all their > grey water to a holding tank and then using the big manual bilge pump > to pump it over board way above the waterline. Their thought is that > they don't have a hole in the hull and that it makes them test the > bilge pump on a regular basis to make sure it is working. > Scott > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "Linus" wrote: > > > > Hey, > > I have been following this group for almost a year. Although at the > moment I have a fiberglass boat (1978 Hunter/Cherubini 33), I like the > common sense (why waste money) approach to boats you guys have. > > > > My question is this, is the 1-1/2" below water line hole in my boat > that us only used to drain water from the galley sink to the outside > really the best solution to getting rid of the used water? The sea > cock currently there is a "Home Store" brass gate valve that is frozen > and needs to be replaced asap. I plan to haul her out next month and > was wondering if there was a viable solution that would allow me to > just re-fiberglass that hole. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25111|25063|2011-01-27 18:06:25|brentswain38|Re: thru hull for galley sink|My mother made a good point, when she said " As one is working in the bottom of any sink , the proper height for a counter is the right height for the bottom of a sink, not the top. Much easier on the back." On some interior layouts ,its easy to raise the sink so the bottom is the same height as the counter top. This may enable you to put the drain above the waterline , as long as the slope is adequate to drain it on both tacks, when well heeled. If you live near pulp mills or the oil industry , scrapyards often have stainless 316 valves for scrap prices, far better and tougher than any marelon valves. They also have some ss flanges, and nipples. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Some hook up a bilge pump, to pump sink water thru an above waterline thru hull , eliminating all underwater thru hulls. You could also put in a temporary storage tank so you could pump it when convenient. Mine is above the chine , so I could easily reach down and put a cork in it, if I were leaving the boat for a long time. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Linus" wrote: > > > > Hey, > > I have been following this group for almost a year. Although at the moment I have a fiberglass boat (1978 Hunter/Cherubini 33), I like the common sense (why waste money) approach to boats you guys have. > > > > My question is this, is the 1-1/2" below water line hole in my boat that us only used to drain water from the galley sink to the outside really the best solution to getting rid of the used water? The sea cock currently there is a "Home Store" brass gate valve that is frozen and needs to be replaced asap. I plan to haul her out next month and was wondering if there was a viable solution that would allow me to just re-fiberglass that hole. > > > | 25112|25015|2011-01-27 18:15:31|brentswain38|Re: Banned ,two more times|In Canada ' for boats under ten hp and under 15 tons , no registration of any kind is required. It doesn't have to even exist on paper. If I hadn't planned to go offshore, my current boat wouldn't exist on paper. When people talk as if computers and high tec had the answer to everything, I'm reminded of how NASA spent millions on trying to invent a pen which would work in zero gravity. The Russians used pencils. Pretty backward and primitive those Russians. Not very trendy and up to date . Much of the high tec of boat design similarly misses the obvious, time and time again. It takes something as logical as a human to spot the obvious. Computers are not always logical, in fact often have zero logic. They are a tool, not the final answer to everything. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Brent, I am with you on this one, BUT... There is reality - North America may be is still not overwhelmed with regulations, but many countries are. And people unable to go "somewhere else" to build a boat. So, they have to buy it or follow ALL regulations to be able to register it. > > P.S. And... There is nothing more scary for bureaucrat than something new. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > All cruisers, who want more overwhelming government bureaucracy, and inspectors, with their hands out for cash, ruling our every move, in our entire lives , raise your hand. > > Didn't think so! > | 25113|25063|2011-01-27 18:23:03|William Munger|Re: thru hull for galley sink|That depends a lot on how tall you are :-) On 1/27/11 6:06 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > My mother made a good point, when she said " As one is working in the > bottom of any sink , the proper height for a counter is the right > height for the bottom of a sink, not the top. Much easier on the back." > On some interior layouts ,its easy to raise the sink so the bottom is > the same height as the counter top. This may enable you to put the > drain above the waterline , as long as the slope is adequate to drain > it on both tacks, when well heeled. > If you live near pulp mills or the oil industry , scrapyards often > have stainless 316 valves for scrap prices, far better and tougher > than any marelon valves. They also have some ss flanges, and nipples. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "brentswain38" > wrote: > > > > Some hook up a bilge pump, to pump sink water thru an above > waterline thru hull , eliminating all underwater thru hulls. You could > also put in a temporary storage tank so you could pump it when > convenient. Mine is above the chine , so I could easily reach down and > put a cork in it, if I were leaving the boat for a long time. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "Linus" wrote: > > > > > > Hey, > > > I have been following this group for almost a year. Although at > the moment I have a fiberglass boat (1978 Hunter/Cherubini 33), I like > the common sense (why waste money) approach to boats you guys have. > > > > > > My question is this, is the 1-1/2" below water line hole in my > boat that us only used to drain water from the galley sink to the > outside really the best solution to getting rid of the used water? The > sea cock currently there is a "Home Store" brass gate valve that is > frozen and needs to be replaced asap. I plan to haul her out next > month and was wondering if there was a viable solution that would > allow me to just re-fiberglass that hole. > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25114|25015|2011-01-27 18:43:14|brentswain38|Re: Banned ,two more times|As several CBC lawyers , and lawyer friends have all told me that the first step in any lawsuit is to determine your victims ability to pay, they have all told me that I'm immune from them. I'd be happy to T-bone a steel barge, or log boom at hull speed to demonstrate the strength of origami boats, then challenge them to do the same in an approved fibreglass boat. The people involved in the torture tests are all still around, and would be happy to testify and show their photos. When someone who claims to be an engineer, demonstrates an inability to count to 14, pointing out that it is dense to give him any credibility, is simply a statement of fact. When he claims that a bilge keel can be forced over 90 degrees without considering the 8 ft of 3/16th plate connecting it to the centreline tank, or its 1,800,000 lbs tensile strength ,is dense, that too is a statement of fact. Stating that accepting the claim that 3 -5/16th shrouds, just may force two 2 inch sch 40 pipes thru 3/16th plate , is dense, is again a statement of fact. Saying that facts which contradict their arguments, can't be stated, as that would be rude, makes their arguments null and void. Saying that I have to lie down, and not challenge these transparently false statements, is like saying that I should get into the boxing ring with both hands tied behind my back , because if I don't, then you wont be able to prove that you are a better boxer , and that just wouldn't be fair. Censorship and banning is an admission that you can't win an argument on a level playing field of open debate, and are millstones around the necks of advancement of any technology. Such censorship are concessions of defeat, in any debate. I'm reminded what the old shipyard workers told me, that when cutting torches first arrived, the workers threw them in the harbour, as they said they would cost jobs. A similar approach is being advocated for origami boat building methods. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > >From: brentswain38@... > >Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:23:11 +0000 > >Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Banned ,two more times > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"Anything discontinuous causes unsolvable equations" pretty well sums up the irrelevance of orthodox ways of calculating things. > > I should have said, as unsolvable as exact, explicitly-written down equations. With computers, masses of equations are used, as finite elements or finite differences or other schemes. These equations, over little bits, are proven to converge to consistent solutions. So even if one curve cannot be written as one equation in pages of calculus, the solution can be made up of a lot of little equations over pieces of the solution. And this only if one attempts a complete solution mathematical solution. There are many other forms of quantitative analysis. There are many approximate methods for everything. So to say irrelevant is not quite fair. > > >I don't think minor changes in hull shape will change the basic principles which give origami hulls their well proven toughness. > > This line of thinking is one often used in science, little changes lead to little differences. This works really well for linear things, and mainly linear things, and particularly for little changes. But shells are not linear, nothing about them is. And what might seem like a little change might lead to a big change. To get an idea what things look like in a shell, an effect called photoelasticity is really helpful. From the Wikipedia page: "The method is mostly used in cases where mathematical methods become quite cumbersome." > > http://www.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=photoelasticity&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1457&bih=881 > > It is hard to describe how it works (Wikipedia does an OK job), but, basically, the patterns show patterns of stress or strain in a material. If you have ever caught a glimpse of photoelasticity in person, it was probably with a thin plastic ruler. Bend it an you get some neat patterns. However twist, bend and pull it at the same time and very rapidly the patterns get quite complex. Make a shell and it gets even more complex, with periodic patterns emerging, like waves. One can imagine, if the waves line up with a strong point, this is good. If they line up with a not-so-strong point, well not so good. Adding stiffeners makes it really complicated. What seem like small changes can make some very complex patterns of stress. > > >When I had a lawyer draw up a builders contract, he asked me about liability. I told him about the torture > >tests the boats had endured, long before even more extreme torture tests had been survived, and he said > >"That covers you completely , far better than anything else possibly could." Other lawyers specializing in > >civil suits have since confirmed his opinion. > > Anecdotes work well provided they are first hand, and the people are around to testify. Other documents might be important to have, like maybe ship's log books, extensive photographs and the person who took the photographs. I hope your lawyers asked you to get all that stuff properly documented. > > >Your engineering students wouldn't be doing anything the sea hasn't already done, and tested , in real conditions. > Well, actually they would, by documenting carefully controlled tests so they would know exactly what they are testing. Documentation is the cornerstone of getting the document to say it is certified. After the boat is off the rock, and after the crowd is dispersed, and the sailors go off to other things and the anecdotes are second-hand and inadmissible, documentation remains. It is not a question of whether the engineers would put the boat through something different, or if anyone here has an expectation that it would not pass any portion of any tests. It is a question of allowing them to go through the exercise to produce expert reports supporting an application for certification. That is all. It is a step on the path, like a drivers test. Maybe 95% of the time it seems a bother and expense, but if you want the piece of paper, you have to do the test. > > Luckily, Brent does not have to certify anything. But conversely, without that piece of paper, it is a lot easier for others to exercise their right to to be uninformed and dismissive. It is the price one pays, and the advantage of certification. > > We are here by choice, we choose to be informed. > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25115|25082|2011-01-27 18:46:03|brentswain38|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|'American Dream?" What's another word for dream? Halucination! --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Giuseppe Bergman wrote: > > I would be greatly surprised if there should occur a progress > like "going to the moon" (or any other significant process) without a radicaly > risen awareness for a new, much more collective sort of United States as a > part of a collective world. > > The current situation in contrast totally disables any idea of scientific > excellence, because literally nobody does see any reason for > any of the inevitable and personal efforts in today's United States . > > The former American dream "anything goes" is dead when it comes > to the participation in social and economic prosperity just through > hard work and brilliant ideas, regardless of which racial, national or > social background You initially might have come from > before freely applying for the scientific studies or jobs a free and progressive > society is proud to offer to their most recent newbees. > > Instead the States build silly walls like we used to have one in Germany, like > anotherone can be admired in the middle of Korea, like one > divides Nikosia/Cypros and anotherone cutting through Palestine ... > > > > > > > Am 27.01.2011 um 03:59 schrieb Ben Okopnik: > > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:37:59AM -0000, ve7vmt2001 wrote: > > > I seem to recall that Lucas were responsible for the electronics on > > > the space shuttle, anyone confirm this? > > > > Lucas was not involved in the STS. I would have been amazed to learn > > that _any_ non-US company was involved, in fact, since the US space > > effort was very much a motivational media campaign in addition to its > > other, more obvious benefits; one of the most stirring speeches given in > > front of the American public (President John F. Kennedy at Rice > > University) was intended to promote the space effort, to motivate the > > best and the brightest to aim for scientific and engineering careers. It > > created a tremendous amount of technical capability in this country - > > that's where those little pockets of brilliance I mentioned came from... > > but all those people who made up that bright generation with whom I had > > the great privilege of working are aging and retiring, and there are no > > replacements. Science is hard, and without a strong motivation to pursue > > it, most people aren't going to stay the course. > > > > Clueless political maneuvering and wrangling killed the space program, > > and certainly the vision and the spirit that were an inseparable part of > > it. In stark contrast to the 60s and the 70s, we're now the world's > > largest consumer, and not much of a producer of anything. Well, hey - > > being good at Nintendo is as valid a life choice as a science degree, > > right? > > > > OOOPS... I must have accidentally tripped my rant switch. Let me flip it > > back off before I start sounding like a bitter old man. > > > > ...but this sure used to be a great country. > > > > We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be > > gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the > > progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all > > technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force > > for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a > > position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will > > be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the > > we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any > > more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but > > I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the > > fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in > > extending his writ around this globe of ours. > > > > [...] We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this > > decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because > > they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the > > best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we > > are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which > > we intend to win, and the others, too. > > > > -- President John F. Kennedy, Rice University Stadium, 9/12/1962 > > > > 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] > | 25116|25015|2011-01-27 19:03:49|brentswain38|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|When you put the stringers on while the plate is flat, then pull the hull into shape, the stringers are put under compression, forcing the hull plate outward , pre stressing it against any inward pressure , increasing it's ability to resist inward pressure. When you cut he edges, they shrink, as does fully welding the chines and centreline , forcing a compound curve in the plates, also increasing it's ability to resist inward pressure. The topsides plates are also very strongly supported by the decks and the chines, relatively close together, the equivalent of fully welded steel bulkheads, structurally.In fact any time two plates come together at a relatively large angle (Hull deck joints, centreline, chines,hull keel joints, tank top, etc,) they support one another as well as fully welded steel bulkheads. Structural calculations which don't recognize these factors are meaningless. If you cut open your pop can, flatten it then compare that with the strength of the uncut can , you get an idea of the strength added by the conic bows of an origami hull. 3/16hg plate is, porportionately, far thicker than a pop can, relative to its size. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > Wild, I think I know what you mean. I think what you are overlooking is modes of failure. I think the over all curvature will give you an idea of over all buckling, and this is only valid without reinforcing stringers. Another pattern of failure, such as a local buckle or a pattern of buckling between stringers would have to be considered. And also, since the boat is not an ellipsoid, its curvature properties change a lot from one area to another. > > Such curvature-based calculations can give estimates perhaps of initial stiffness. In a failure buckling condition, with a small change in geometry, the local incremental stiffness goes to zero, and buckling initiates. Here is an experiment: put two empty pop cans on a really sturdy bench. Carefully pile weight on one of them, like maybe 50 pounds, so it is near collapse. Glue the other one to the top of the bench, without any weight on it. Very carefully, not with your finger, very gently probe the side of the two cans to feel their stiffness against just beginning to dent inward. Do the unloaded one first. It is quite possible when you touch the loaded one a very rapid and apparently unexpected collapse will occur. Just before it collapsed, you should have noted that it was a lot "softer", less resistant to being probed. Both cans have precisely the same curvature properties. The difference is preload stress. > > Stresses induced in pulling and welding an orgami together are not negligible -- after all one has pulled the sheet together and plasticly deformed the metal. If the entire hull could be stress-relieved, after manufacture, I am sure there would be a lot less uncertainty among engineers. > > Going back to the two cans, if one could tap them with a very thin piece of stainless steel wire (single strand picture frame wire?) one would note that the glued-down can would make a higher pitched "tink" sound, and the loaded can, a lower pitched "tonk" sound. As incremental stiffness goes down, the resonant frequency of that part of the can goes down too. Buckling happens when the frequency goes to zero, and instead of the surface oscillating, it diverges. All very cool mathematics. BTW, if one pressurized the can, that preload would cause a higher pitched sound, and would make it more resistant to buckling from end-wise compression. > > The thing of practical interest is, tapping an orgami hull with a hammer can find areas that might be under pre-load -- either causing them to give a higher or lower pitched sound. Note, one is looking for the initial sound, not the sound as the energy from the tap spreads out like the ripples in a pond. Tapping at seams and stiffeners can only be compared to areas of similar geometry. So tapping down the length of a seam is informative, tapping along the hull along the length of where the stiffener is welded is informative, and tapping over the area of the hull away from all these discontinuities is informative. Unfortunately, for shells the largest stresses often result from line forces and torques along the seams that lead to waves of stress radiating from loaded seams. Still, a hammer and a good ear will at least tell you something. If you find two areas with vastly different sounds, close together, and away from any discontinuities, I would sure call that an area of interest. The duller, lower frequency area might be a candidate for more stiffening, but remember, the stress pattern completely changes when the boat is loaded differently. So tapping it while it is on the hard, sitting on its twin keels will give different results from tapping when it is in the water. Just to one has an idea of what sound means: > > Freq = sqrt( K / m ) > > Where K has sort of a generic stiffness meaning, and m is the mass that is vibrating, in the middle of a sheet is is proportional to the mass per unit area of the sheet. When tapping, if the frequency of the sound drops by 1 octave, that is a factor of 2 in frequency, then the stiffness has dropped by a factor of 4 or to 25% of its former value. When it reaches 0% that is when buckling is possible. If you can, take an opportunity to tap on a musical steel drum to get an idea of the what I am talking about. Anyway, for a shell, for areas that are in all other respects equal, having a frequency difference of an octave is a lot. > > I really am trying to give a back-yard-useful explanation. Anyone building an orgami, still just welding, I would be interested to hear what you heard tapping close-by the middle seam, from brest (between the keels) to bow. > > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: williswildest@... > Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 05:14:25 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Banned ,two more times > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, is it possible to use Gaussian curvature as a measurement of origami hull's strength? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25117|25015|2011-01-27 19:14:21|wild_explorer|Re: Banned ,two more times|See comments below... --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > In Canada ' for boats under ten hp and under 15 tons , no registration of any kind is required. It doesn't have to even exist on paper. If I hadn't planned to go offshore, my current boat >wouldn't exist on paper. > > In USA and Canada rules are pretty loose. In many countries you need to register ANY boat. Especially if you plan to use it on internal water ways. So, it is not the option you can choose ;( > When people talk as if computers and high tec had the answer to everything, I'm reminded of how NASA spent millions on trying to invent a pen which would work in zero gravity. The Russians used >pencils. > This story is famous ;) > Much of the high tec of boat design similarly misses the obvious, time and time again. It takes something as logical as a human to spot the obvious. Computers are not always logical, in fact often have zero logic. They are a tool, not the final answer to everything. > > I agree, computer just a tool, which might be VERY dangerous if you blindly rely on it. At least, user should be able to do estimations without it in some cases. Just a clarification... Computers DO have logic. Analog computers - analog logic, digital - digital logic. They do not have human type logic - which is not logical sometimes. Do not have yet... | 25118|25082|2011-01-27 20:00:41|scott|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|sorry fictionalisation was supposed to be factionalisation scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > > I'm not so sure I agree with this.. I think part of the problem is that we have tried to become everything to everyone and be part of the collective world rather than just be ourselves. We have as society internally become so do no harm even accidentally or even think something that might possible 20 years from now harm something that we have just quit living and striving as a nation. We now apologise to nations, groups and ideologies that we fought against in the past to free people from. > > many of the groups that we have, are striving for identities that override their identity as Americans is a great example of everything to everyone and the fictionalisation of America. We are now everything but American and as a result are losing the spark of greatness that we had. > > At one point we were the great American melting pot... the sum of the whole was greater than the parts. Now we are splintering back up and the sum is becoming much less than the parts. We are becoming less. > > scott > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Giuseppe Bergman wrote: > > > > I would be greatly surprised if there should occur a progress > > like "going to the moon" (or any other significant process) without a radicaly > > risen awareness for a new, much more collective sort of United States as a > > part of a collective world. > > > > The current situation in contrast totally disables any idea of scientific > > excellence, because literally nobody does see any reason for > > any of the inevitable and personal efforts in today's United States . > > > > The former American dream "anything goes" is dead when it comes > > to the participation in social and economic prosperity just through > > hard work and brilliant ideas, regardless of which racial, national or > > social background You initially might have come from > > before freely applying for the scientific studies or jobs a free and progressive > > society is proud to offer to their most recent newbees. > > > > Instead the States build silly walls like we used to have one in Germany, like > > anotherone can be admired in the middle of Korea, like one > > divides Nikosia/Cypros and anotherone cutting through Palestine ... > > > > > > > > > > > | 25119|25063|2011-01-27 20:15:11|Mark Hamill|Re: thru hull for galley sink|I picked up two new deeper narrower sinks at a garage sale for $10 and mounted them so that my fingers would easily touch the bottoms--can guestimate by assuming the washing position and measure the height from knuckles to the floor and see how that works. I also lean into the counter edge which helps the back. I work at a yacht charter company and many of the boats have galley sinks, cold box and showers that have pumps with a strainer in the line before the pump. Some you have to manually turn on, others are automatic--such as ones that flow into a dedicated box with a strainer and a an electric bilge pump and flapper swith. One flows into a square foot low spot in the bilge that has a strainer/fence around it to act as a strainer and can double as a bilge pump. With a diaphram pump as per the holding tank idea you wouldn't need strainers--right?? Gotta say though that there is something unpleasant about cleaning out strainers from other people after they have brought the boats back from charters. And I used to be a zookeeper. Ha Ha [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25120|25082|2011-01-27 20:52:46|Ben Okopnik|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 06:50:33PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > I am surprised that many people make a big deal about "space program". > From "challenge" point of view, "deep ocean" exploration is more > challenging than space. You must be kidding. In what way can it possibly be more challenging? Space exploration includes other planets (which will also have seas) and star systems as well as an infinite amount of variation in literally every imaginable direction. Deep ocean exploration involves exactly one challenge: dealing with pressure (and all the ramifications from it.) By comparison, that's no challenge at all. Space also provides an avenue to infinite expansion for the entire human race, as well as the only route to ultimate survival (right now, one large-enough nuke means the end of the human race.) At the most optimistic possible projection, the ocean would provide less than double the living space that we have now; in space, we can create that by just building habitats at the LaGrange points around the Earth. I love the ocean - but when it comes to the value of possible exploration results, it's not even meaningful alternative to space. 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| 25121|25063|2011-01-27 20:58:05|Ben Okopnik|Re: thru hull for galley sink|On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 08:59:45PM -0000, scott wrote: > In one of the pardys books or movies they talk about running all their > grey water to a holding tank and then using the big manual bilge pump > to pump it over board way above the waterline. The only problem with this approach is pumping it out in a populated anchorage. The sight of anything but clean water going overboard is going to cause all sorts of reactions - all negative - as well as an eventual visit from the water Nazis. It doesn't matter that you're doing the same thing as everyone else; theirs isn't visible when it goes over, while yours is an offense to God and country because it can be seen. Other than that, it's a great solution. Maybe having a piece of hose that you slip over the drain the lower end of which sits in the water is the answer. 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| 25122|25015|2011-01-27 21:06:47|Ben Okopnik|Re: Banned ,two more times|On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:14:10AM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > When people talk as if computers and high tec had the answer to > > everything, I'm reminded of how NASA spent millions on trying to > > invent a pen which would work in zero gravity. The Russians used > > >pencils. > > This story is famous ;) But false. Famous stories can be like that. :) http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp -- 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| 25123|25063|2011-01-27 21:14:01|William Munger|Re: thru hull for galley sink|> The only problem with this approach is pumping it out in a populated > anchorage. The sight of anything but clean water going overboard is > going to cause all sorts of reactions - all negative - as well as an > eventual visit from the water Nazis. It doesn't matter that you're doing > the same thing as everyone else; theirs isn't visible when it goes over, > while yours is an offense to God and country because it can be seen. > People sure can be strange cant they?! What you dont see cant hurt you right? Bilge water exits above waterline on most every boat I have seen, and in my opinion that has far worse to think about then sink water. Maybe only empty it at night like 2AM. > > Other than that, it's a great solution. Maybe having a piece of hose > that you slip over the drain the lower end of which sits in the water is > the answer. > This sounds like a doable solution though. My manual bilge exit is on the underside of my aft so if I had a flexible hose attached to shield the unsightly sink water I might be good. Thanks for the ideas everyone! > 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]| 25124|25082|2011-01-27 21:41:54|Darren Bos|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|I like a lot of what you write Ben, but you have this backward. We have spent a lot of time and effort on space exploration, and there have been beneficial spinoffs, but there are no spots nearby where any significant number of people can live (and our technological and scientific knowledge is at a state where we can only go to places that are very nearby). The ocean however does offer far more opportunities and has seen a fraction of the effort in exploration (the same effort in ocean science/exploration would have a similar number of spinoff benefits as space exploration). The human population is growing far to rapidly to make space practical, better to put our efforts elsewhere. Sad, but the clock is ticking. Unfortunately space is sexy. Darren At 05:52 PM 27/01/2011, you wrote: > >snip > >I love the ocean - but when it comes to the value of possible >exploration results, it's not even meaningful alternative to space. > >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]| 25125|25082|2011-01-27 21:48:16|wild_explorer|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|Expansion??? And that what I am actually afraid of... Human is the WORST animal on the Earth. It have done enough damage for its own planet. I already can see what others planets will look like ;)) Deep ocean exploration involves all possible (realistic) challenges as space + underwater pressure. Are you sure that space shuttle will survive the water pressure of the lowest point of the ocean? And even if it survives, it will be able to operate there as long as in the space? How about to get outside just to fix something? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > Space also provides an avenue to infinite expansion for the entire human > race, as well as the only route to ultimate survival (right now, one > large-enough nuke means the end of the human race.) | 25126|25082|2011-01-27 22:59:30|Ben Okopnik|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 06:41:50PM -0800, Darren Bos wrote: > I like a lot of what you write Ben, but you have > this backward. We have spent a lot of time and > effort on space exploration, and there have been > beneficial spinoffs, but there are no spots > nearby where any significant number of people can > live (and our technological and scientific > knowledge is at a state where we can only go to > places that are very nearby). Like... Lagrange points? L1 is 1.5 million km from Earth, and we've already got three major space vehicles in orbits around it. L2? Same story (you've heard of the Planck and the Hershel space observatories, right?) Yep, they're there. And we've still got L4 and L5 to go; nearly infinite expansion room right there for all practical purposes. Best of all, they're right next to the entry points for the ITN (Interplanetary Transport Network), which gets us a very cheap, if not quite free, ride to the rest of the solar system. A single Lagrange environment composed of an O'Neill cylinder would support ~1 million inhabitants - and given the materials of just one of Jupiter's moons (e.g., Europa), we could construct several _billion_ of those. The experimentation with automated construction factories that produce O'Neill cylinders was well underway... and has now been shut down. > The ocean however > does offer far more opportunities and has seen a > fraction of the effort in exploration (the same > effort in ocean science/exploration would have a > similar number of spinoff benefits as space > exploration). The human population is growing > far to rapidly to make space practical, better to > put our efforts elsewhere. Darren... I'm sorry, I don't want to be rude in the least - but you've just demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic mathematics. I assume you're familiar with the term "exponential growth"? In case you're not, that's the rate at which populations grow. Even if we were capable of occupying _all_ the space under the ocean - and we can't, for the same reason that we'll never have cities at the top of Everest - we'd gain just a hair over twice the room we have now (although, in reality, it would probably be about a 50% expansion at most.) Here's the bad news: that would be _linear_ expansion - which you're pitting against _exponential_ expansion. Sorry, you lose: game, set, and match. Currently, we have a population of about ~7 billion; it's going to double sometime before 2100 (doubling rate is ~ 70/growth rate, which has averaged 1.8% since 1400.) In other words, all the effort - all the money spent on that ocean research and exploration - wouldn't stave off filling up the Earth by a hundred years. And once that's filled up, that's the end. Efficient construction methods in space - which is what the ultimate end of the space program was all about - would have made population a non-issue. 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| 25127|25082|2011-01-27 23:12:57|Ben Okopnik|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:48:14AM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > Expansion??? And that what I am actually afraid of... Human is the > WORST animal on the Earth. It have done enough damage for its own > planet. I already can see what others planets will look like ;)) [blink] I'm sorry, but... if you think that humans are so horrible, why not commit suicide right now? I'm not trying to be mean, but - I don't hate the human race, so I'm all for its survival. Anyone who isn't for its survival should follow their beliefs and terminate themselves as quickly as possible. Incidentally, who are you trying to preserve the other planets _for?_ Some sort of aliens? Why does some imaginary race of beings have more of a right to exist than we do? How do you know that they won't cover other planets with radioactive waste, or totally destroy them? You might want to examine your thinking to see if there just might be a tiny flaw - like a huge amount of self-hate - buried in it. > Deep ocean exploration involves all possible (realistic) challenges as > space + underwater pressure. Are you sure that space shuttle will > survive the water pressure of the lowest point of the ocean? And even > if it survives, it will be able to operate there as long as in the > space? How about to get outside just to fix something? That's a nonsense question, like "Are you sure that a submarine will be able to accelerate to escape velocity and travel between stars?" The shuttle is designed to operate as a delivery vehicle between the earth and the low earth orbit. Would you expect a truck to fly at Mach 5? That's not what it's designed for. 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| 25128|25082|2011-01-27 23:41:51|wild_explorer|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|;)))) Sorry Ben, I am changing my mind... We need to accelerate space program and send 99.99% of Earth population to Space. I agree to be "left behind" and explore the ocean here ;) P.S. Do not take this silly talk seriously ;) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > [blink] I'm sorry, but... if you think that humans are so horrible, why > not commit suicide right now? | 25129|25082|2011-01-27 23:47:17|Ben Okopnik|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 04:41:41AM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > ;)))) Sorry Ben, I am changing my mind... We need to accelerate space > program and send 99.99% of Earth population to Space. I agree to be > "left behind" and explore the ocean here ;) Deal. I wonder how well you'll do if all that population (and their support services) are gone. :) > P.S. Do not take this silly talk seriously ;) I'm not; on large issues like that, it doesn't much matter what either you or I say. Those decisions got made a while ago. 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| 25130|25082|2011-01-27 23:48:12|Ben Okopnik|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 06:41:50PM -0800, Darren Bos wrote: > I like a lot of what you write Ben, but you have > this backward. We have spent a lot of time and > effort on space exploration, and there have been > beneficial spinoffs, but there are no spots > nearby where any significant number of people can > live (and our technological and scientific > knowledge is at a state where we can only go to > places that are very nearby). Like... Lagrange points? L1 is 1.5 million km from Earth, and we've already got three major space vehicles in orbits around it. L2? Same story (you've heard of the Planck and the Hershel space observatories, right?) Yep, they're there. And we've still got L4 and L5 to go; nearly infinite expansion room right there for all practical purposes. Best of all, they're right next to the entry points for the ITN (Interplanetary Transport Network), which gets us a very cheap, if not quite free, ride to the rest of the solar system. A single Lagrange environment composed of an O'Neill cylinder would support ~1 million inhabitants - and given the materials of just one of Jupiter's moons (e.g., Europa), we could construct several _billion_ of those. The experimentation with automated construction factories that produce O'Neill cylinders was well underway... and has now been shut down. > The ocean however > does offer far more opportunities and has seen a > fraction of the effort in exploration (the same > effort in ocean science/exploration would have a > similar number of spinoff benefits as space > exploration). The human population is growing > far to rapidly to make space practical, better to > put our efforts elsewhere. Darren... I'm sorry, I don't want to be rude in the least - but you've just demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic mathematics. I assume you're familiar with the term "exponential growth"? In case you're not, that's the rate at which populations grow. Even if we were capable of occupying _all_ the space under the ocean - and we can't, for the same reason that we'll never have cities at the top of Everest - we'd gain just a hair over twice the room we have now (although, in reality, it would probably be about a 50% expansion at most.) Here's the bad news: that would be _linear_ expansion - which you're pitting against _exponential_ expansion. Sorry, you lose: game, set, and match. Currently, we have a population of about ~7 billion; it's going to double sometime before 2100 (doubling rate is ~ 70/growth rate, which has averaged 1.8% since 1400.) In other words, all the effort - all the money spent on that ocean research and exploration - wouldn't stave off filling up the Earth by a hundred years. And once that's filled up, that's the end. Efficient construction methods in space - which is what the ultimate end of the space program was all about - would have made population a non-issue. 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| 25131|25082|2011-01-28 02:17:17|Darren Bos|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|Ben, What you are proposing is still closer to science fiction than a technologically possible solution. Moving billions of people into space is so far from our current level of technological development that progress is likely to be slow and full of setbacks. As an example, Biosphere II couldn't even support 8 people, imagine the headaches in scaling that up to a billion.....(yes I realize Biosphere II had scientific problems). Also, you can get materials from the moon or asteroids in order to avoid pushing stuff out of earths gravity well, but you still need to figure out a way to lift billions of people off the planet to make a dent in the population (I'm still waiting for the space elevator). Also consider that all previous space stations pale in complexity to an O'Neill cylinder (technologically and more importantly ecologically). I don't disagree that space is the end game (although more for reasons involving eggs and baskets), but my expertise is in ecology and unless we make some changes I see the bottom falling out of things well before we could establish a space presence anything like the one you describe (remember you need a highly organized and well fed society down here to create a space presence). I'd argue instead to focus our efforts on feeding ourselves and keeping the only working biosphere in the solar system (Earth) functional. Your assumption that human population growth is a simple exponential function is erroneous. Population growth is slowing down, the popular estimates now show population stabilizing between 2050 and 2100 likely somewhere 8 and10 billion people (these are of course models that need to be taken with a grain of salt). However, feeding folks at these population levels is not going to be easy (some would say nightmarish). Thus rather than focus on space, why not focus on the ocean, or even ecological systems in general, which we are going to have to rely on much more heavily for food in order to keep civilization stable enough to eventually realize a space solution or population contraction (my preference as I don't see life on a space station, even an O'Neill cylinder, as attractive as one on an ecologically mature planet). Thanks to all who are more interested in boats that put up with such tangential ranting, I hope they add colour to the group. Darren At 08:48 PM 27/01/2011, you wrote: > > >On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 06:41:50PM -0800, Darren Bos wrote: > > I like a lot of what you write Ben, but you have > > this backward. We have spent a lot of time and > > effort on space exploration, and there have been > > beneficial spinoffs, but there are no spots > > nearby where any significant number of people can > > live (and our technological and scientific > > knowledge is at a state where we can only go to > > places that are very nearby). > >Like... Lagrange points? L1 is 1.5 million km from Earth, and we've >already got three major space vehicles in orbits around it. L2? Same >story (you've heard of the Planck and the Hershel space observatories, >right?) Yep, they're there. And we've still got L4 and L5 to go; nearly >infinite expansion room right there for all practical purposes. Best of >all, they're right next to the entry points for the ITN (Interplanetary >Transport Network), which gets us a very cheap, if not quite free, ride >to the rest of the solar system. > >A single Lagrange environment composed of an O'Neill cylinder would >support ~1 million inhabitants - and given the materials of just one of >Jupiter's moons (e.g., Europa), we could construct several _billion_ of >those. The experimentation with automated construction factories that >produce O'Neill cylinders was well underway... and has now been shut >down. > > > The ocean however > > does offer far more opportunities and has seen a > > fraction of the effort in exploration (the same > > effort in ocean science/exploration would have a > > similar number of spinoff benefits as space > > exploration). The human population is growing > > far to rapidly to make space practical, better to > > put our efforts elsewhere. > >Darren... I'm sorry, I don't want to be rude in the least - but you've >just demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic mathematics. I assume >you're familiar with the term "exponential growth"? In case you're not, >that's the rate at which populations grow. Even if we were capable of >occupying _all_ the space under the ocean - and we can't, for the same >reason that we'll never have cities at the top of Everest - we'd gain >just a hair over twice the room we have now (although, in reality, it >would probably be about a 50% expansion at most.) > >Here's the bad news: that would be _linear_ expansion - which you're >pitting against _exponential_ expansion. Sorry, you lose: game, set, and >match. Currently, we have a population of about ~7 billion; it's going >to double sometime before 2100 (doubling rate is ~ 70/growth rate, which >has averaged 1.8% since 1400.) In other words, all the effort - all the >money spent on that ocean research and exploration - wouldn't stave off >filling up the Earth by a hundred years. And once that's filled up, >that's the end. > >Efficient construction methods in space - which is what the ultimate end >of the space program was all about - would have made population a >non-issue. > >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]| 25132|25082|2011-01-28 02:21:04|Ben Okopnik|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:17:31PM -0800, Darren Bos wrote: > > Thanks to all who are more interested in boats > that put up with such tangential ranting, I hope they add colour to the group. [grin] It _is_ a bit off-topic, isn't it? Taken off-list to private email. 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| 25133|25133|2011-01-28 17:15:26|wild_explorer|New Stability Curve for BS36 SINGLE keel|New stability curve is available for SINGLE keel BS36 in file section. AVS=180 deg, Max. Dynamic Heeling Angle ~120 deg. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/Origami_hulls_and_stability/ Based on 3D model. It still not perfect, but more accurate than last one (includes clarifications from Brent for foot well, cabin, pilothouse) and LEAD ballast. Please note: this model has STEEL mast and boom.| 25134|25082|2011-01-28 18:38:09|brentswain38|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|Americans? Which ones? North Americans, or South Americans? Conflicts over abuses over differences in race etc are far less than they were, a huge improvement. Race, origins or gender no longer limits what one can do, as much as it used to, a huge improvement --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > > sorry fictionalisation was supposed to be factionalisation > scott > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > > > > I'm not so sure I agree with this.. I think part of the problem is that we have tried to become everything to everyone and be part of the collective world rather than just be ourselves. We have as society internally become so do no harm even accidentally or even think something that might possible 20 years from now harm something that we have just quit living and striving as a nation. We now apologise to nations, groups and ideologies that we fought against in the past to free people from. > > > > many of the groups that we have, are striving for identities that override their identity as Americans is a great example of everything to everyone and the fictionalisation of America. We are now everything but American and as a result are losing the spark of greatness that we had. > > > > At one point we were the great American melting pot... the sum of the whole was greater than the parts. Now we are splintering back up and the sum is becoming much less than the parts. We are becoming less. > > > > scott > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Giuseppe Bergman wrote: > > > > > > I would be greatly surprised if there should occur a progress > > > like "going to the moon" (or any other significant process) without a radicaly > > > risen awareness for a new, much more collective sort of United States as a > > > part of a collective world. > > > > > > The current situation in contrast totally disables any idea of scientific > > > excellence, because literally nobody does see any reason for > > > any of the inevitable and personal efforts in today's United States . > > > > > > The former American dream "anything goes" is dead when it comes > > > to the participation in social and economic prosperity just through > > > hard work and brilliant ideas, regardless of which racial, national or > > > social background You initially might have come from > > > before freely applying for the scientific studies or jobs a free and progressive > > > society is proud to offer to their most recent newbees. > > > > > > Instead the States build silly walls like we used to have one in Germany, like > > > anotherone can be admired in the middle of Korea, like one > > > divides Nikosia/Cypros and anotherone cutting through Palestine ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | 25135|25063|2011-01-28 18:39:48|brentswain38|Re: thru hull for galley sink|Check the sinks and strainers with a magnet. Magnetic ones will corrode, non magnetic ones wont. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > I picked up two new deeper narrower sinks at a garage sale for $10 and mounted them so that my fingers would easily touch the bottoms--can guestimate by assuming the washing position and measure the height from knuckles to the floor and see how that works. I also lean into the counter edge which helps the back. > > I work at a yacht charter company and many of the boats have galley sinks, cold box and showers that have pumps with a strainer in the line before the pump. Some you have to manually turn on, others are automatic--such as ones that flow into a dedicated box with a strainer and a an electric bilge pump and flapper swith. One flows into a square foot low spot in the bilge that has a strainer/fence around it to act as a strainer and can double as a bilge pump. With a diaphram pump as per the holding tank idea you wouldn't need strainers--right?? > > Gotta say though that there is something unpleasant about cleaning out strainers from other people after they have brought the boats back from charters. And I used to be a zookeeper. Ha Ha > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25136|25082|2011-01-28 18:40:55|brentswain38|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|Much better visibility in space, as well. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 06:50:33PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > I am surprised that many people make a big deal about "space program". > > From "challenge" point of view, "deep ocean" exploration is more > > challenging than space. > > You must be kidding. In what way can it possibly be more challenging? > Space exploration includes other planets (which will also have seas) and > star systems as well as an infinite amount of variation in literally > every imaginable direction. Deep ocean exploration involves exactly one > challenge: dealing with pressure (and all the ramifications from it.) By > comparison, that's no challenge at all. > > Space also provides an avenue to infinite expansion for the entire human > race, as well as the only route to ultimate survival (right now, one > large-enough nuke means the end of the human race.) At the most > optimistic possible projection, the ocean would provide less than double > the living space that we have now; in space, we can create that by just > building habitats at the LaGrange points around the Earth. > > I love the ocean - but when it comes to the value of possible > exploration results, it's not even meaningful alternative to space. > > > 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 > | 25137|25015|2011-01-28 18:41:37|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Not about boats, but showing usage of shaped structures: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Thin-shell_structure Slightly different approach to elimination of frames in structures http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Hyperboloid_structure http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Tensile_structure| 25138|25063|2011-01-28 18:42:44|brentswain38|Re: thru hull for galley sink|Good reason for putting that thru hull close to the waterline, and pump at night. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 08:59:45PM -0000, scott wrote: > > In one of the pardys books or movies they talk about running all their > > grey water to a holding tank and then using the big manual bilge pump > > to pump it over board way above the waterline. > > The only problem with this approach is pumping it out in a populated > anchorage. The sight of anything but clean water going overboard is > going to cause all sorts of reactions - all negative - as well as an > eventual visit from the water Nazis. It doesn't matter that you're doing > the same thing as everyone else; theirs isn't visible when it goes over, > while yours is an offense to God and country because it can be seen. > > Other than that, it's a great solution. Maybe having a piece of hose > that you slip over the drain the lower end of which sits in the water is > the answer. > > > 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 > | 25139|25063|2011-01-28 18:49:13|brentswain38|Re: thru hull for galley sink|While hanging out at Fanning Island in the Pacific , every time someone pumped a head, the surgeon fish would go into a feeding frenzy and in half a minute there was not a spec of shit left. Some one cleaned one, and the stomach contents were shit, and nothing else. The water there was so stagnant, that a bucket dropped overboard, was only a few feet away hours later. We never saw a dead fish , they all thrived. The environmentalists solution. Add formaldehyde to the shit, to save the surgeon fish . Ya Sure! --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, William Munger wrote: > > > > The only problem with this approach is pumping it out in a populated > > anchorage. The sight of anything but clean water going overboard is > > going to cause all sorts of reactions - all negative - as well as an > > eventual visit from the water Nazis. It doesn't matter that you're doing > > the same thing as everyone else; theirs isn't visible when it goes over, > > while yours is an offense to God and country because it can be seen. > > > People sure can be strange cant they?! What you dont see cant hurt you > right? > Bilge water exits above waterline on most every boat I have seen, and in > my opinion that has far worse to think about then sink water. > Maybe only empty it at night like 2AM. > > > > Other than that, it's a great solution. Maybe having a piece of hose > > that you slip over the drain the lower end of which sits in the water is > > the answer. > > > This sounds like a doable solution though. My manual bilge exit is on > the underside of my aft so if I had a flexible hose attached to shield > the unsightly sink water I might be good. > > Thanks for the ideas everyone! > > > 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] > | 25140|25082|2011-01-28 18:52:31|brentswain38|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|Funny how we spend so much effort in trying to figure out how to deal with an expanding population, and so little in trying to limit or reduce it. When the obvious solution is politically, and culturally taboo, we are in real trouble. That is THE problem. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > > I like a lot of what you write Ben, but you have > this backward. We have spent a lot of time and > effort on space exploration, and there have been > beneficial spinoffs, but there are no spots > nearby where any significant number of people can > live (and our technological and scientific > knowledge is at a state where we can only go to > places that are very nearby). The ocean however > does offer far more opportunities and has seen a > fraction of the effort in exploration (the same > effort in ocean science/exploration would have a > similar number of spinoff benefits as space > exploration). The human population is growing > far to rapidly to make space practical, better to > put our efforts elsewhere. Sad, but the clock is > ticking. Unfortunately space is sexy. > > Darren > > At 05:52 PM 27/01/2011, you wrote: > > > >snip > > > >I love the ocean - but when it comes to the value of possible > >exploration results, it's not even meaningful alternative to space. > > > >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] > | 25141|25082|2011-01-28 18:53:48|brentswain38|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|No shortage of "Space Cadets" here on earth. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > ;)))) Sorry Ben, I am changing my mind... We need to accelerate space program and send 99.99% of Earth population to Space. I agree to be "left behind" and explore the ocean here ;) > > P.S. Do not take this silly talk seriously ;) > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > [blink] I'm sorry, but... if you think that humans are so horrible, why > > not commit suicide right now? > | 25142|17949|2011-01-28 18:59:43|brentswain38|Steel prices|With the flooding of Aussie Coal mines, and the dependence on Aussi coal by the steel industries, it is being predicted that steel prices will begin to rise. Maybe time to buy what you need, before it does.| 25143|25015|2011-01-28 19:11:26|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Quote: Perhaps the most exciting geometric shapes evolving from shell structures are the singly and doubly curved shells. The singly curved shell has zero curvature in one principal direction and at right angles and the curvature at all points on the structure is of the same sign. A typical example is the barrel vault of circular cross section which is usually supported on rigid end diaphragms. Another form of shell structure is the doubly curved shell which can be further classified into synclastic shells (two principal curvatures are of the same sign – positive Gaussian curvature) and anticlastic shells (principal curvatures are of different sign –- negative Gaussian curvature). A typical example of a synclastic shell is the GRP dome (generally roof domes) in which the two curvatures are of equal magnitude like the elliptic paraboloid. Since the principal curvatures of anticlastic surfaces are of opposite sign, the buckling of thin GRP skins in one direction is virtually eliminated by the tension in the other direction. Source: http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/2493/grp-builds-a-future-in-the-gulf-region/| 25144|25015|2011-01-28 19:29:58|David Frantz|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Nice site that has escaped up til now. David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. On Jan 28, 2011, at 6:41 PM, wild_explorer wrote: > Not about boats, but showing usage of shaped structures: > > http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Thin-shell_structure > > Slightly different approach to elimination of frames in structures > > http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Hyperboloid_structure > > http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Tensile_structure > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 25145|17949|2011-01-28 20:40:51|James Pronk|Re: Steel prices|The price of steel here is up 20% in the last month I keep kicking my self for not starting. But then I was ready to start in 2006. I had the price for all the steel and I was about a week away for ordering the steel for a 42' gazelle. I just happened upon a post from Brent, on another group, and then half a dozen members started to tear strips off of him. Wow! This guy must be a real quack or these guy must be really afraid of him. Well I am not on the other group any more and I don't have a rusting hull in a yard that looks like a starved horse and I am paying rent at. I have all the detailing done for my BS 36 and the engine is almost rebuilt. So I am going to spend maybe $1000 more for the steel then I would have last month? That is not so bad! James --- On Fri, 1/28/11, brentswain38 wrote: From: brentswain38 Subject: [origamiboats] Steel prices To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Friday, January 28, 2011, 6:59 PM   With the flooding of Aussie Coal mines, and the dependence on Aussi coal by the steel industries, it is being predicted that steel prices will begin to rise. Maybe time to buy what you need, before it does. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25146|25015|2011-01-28 22:10:28|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Matt, It looks like someone already did some research about effect of "shaped forms" on the strength of constructions. http://www.architects.org/documents/education/researchgrants/2006/Pavlik_2006_report.pdf Is it your field of expertise?| 25147|25015|2011-01-28 22:55:09|Matt Malone|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Wild, I am pretty sure I have seen or used all the elements of this before, like lego, but the particular assembly and its exact use is unfamilar. If I were to guess, it looks like a tool used to come up with plausible shapes for buildings, however, a more geometrically exact representation, including internal structure, would be needed before any building could move from the concept stage to a detailed design stage. For boats one would need the free body dynamics for the boat*, finite elements for the structure*, computational fluid dynamics, with free surfaces, for the water outside, wave models for the ocean, and an analysis through time to follow the changes in all of these* and likely a separate computational fluid dynamics for the wind movement. With large waves, the flow of air round the waves would become important. I really only know about the *'ed things. One could sort of a whole-boat approach, like used to calculate responses of an airplane using stability derivatives and form a state equation and then simulate that way. Then with state information calculate the forces on the boat in a particular state along the way. This allows no interaction between the boat and the water, the boat would not create waves, etc, it would be like the sailing simulators I have used. At any given point in time, one would be able to estimate loadings, and from this generate stresses. Still very complicated. I do not know currently Wild. If I were to practically test an orgami, I might bring a portable strain gauge system, stick straingages in the hull and take Brent up on his offer to hit a logging boom at hull speed. Or I would take a bare uninsulated boat, and spray on a thin layer of photoelastic material on the inside when it was in calm water, and take it out in the some rough stuff and take a video of the photoelastic patterns. Maybe I might then stick a few straingages in in some interesting spots and do it again. Not sure, Matt -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 03:10:18 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami Matt, It looks like someone already did some research about effect of "shaped forms" on the strength of constructions. http://www.architects.org/documents/education/researchgrants/2006/Pavlik_2006_report.pdf Is it your field of expertise? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25148|25015|2011-01-28 23:23:39|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|This would be good for a final test. At this moment, I am trying to find how to ESTIMATE strength of origami hull based on 3D model or Gaussian Curvature (GC) from it. I can see problem areas, but we are interested in the strength of the hull in general. I even found some paper which describes how to estimate quality of steel using GC, but not much information about estimating strength of the structure based on GC. Origami hull has positive GC. Does someone have good idea how to do it if 3D model available? My Internet search ability is limited... --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > If I were to practically test an orgami, I might bring a portable strain gauge system, stick straingages in the hull and take Brent up on his offer to hit a logging boom at hull speed. Or I would take a bare uninsulated boat, and spray on a thin layer of photoelastic material on the inside when it was in calm water, and take it out in the some rough stuff and take a video of the photoelastic patterns. Maybe I might then stick a few straingages in in some interesting spots and do it again. > > Not sure, > > Matt | 25149|25082|2011-01-29 11:07:17|scott|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|Actually it's not science fiction, all the technology to do it is currently available and practical. Even the mass transportation of people off the planet. We now have the technology to build a beanstalk (space elevator) that could accommodate the bulk transportation of goods and people from the planet to orbit. About 5 years ago I saw a proposed budget to build it that was in the neighbourhood of 4 trillion dollars. The only reason we haven't done more to colonise space is finances and lack of vision and will. I hope that something changes and work toward that. The return would be tremendous... could you imagine the availability of raw materials if you moved an asteroid to earth orbit and mined and processed it there. You could then dropped bulk materials out of orbit to designated locations or ship them down a beanstalk. Also the technological spin-offs of having the ability to process raw materials and to manufacture goods in 0 gravity would make what came out of the early space program look like peanuts. Unfortunately government and insane safety standards happened to NASA. We could already have had most of this already if it didn't cost so much to do the simplest thing because of the triple and quadruple safety systems they build into everything. Not saying to not have safety just not to the extent and cost we have put into it. I would guess that for every dollar that actually directly helps advance us into space another 100 is spent in bureaucracy and safety and redundant testing on top of testing etc.. A good example of this is that we have a couple of private corporations that have built and are testing existing space craft currently for a tiny fraction of what it took nasa to do the same thing. NASA and the government are lined up to be clients of these companies as soon as they go fully operational as they will be able to lift small loads to orbit cheaper than NASA can. Scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > > Ben, > > What you are proposing is still closer to science > fiction than a technologically possible > solution. Moving billions of people into space > is so far from our current level of technological > development that progress is likely to be slow > and full of setbacks. As an example, Biosphere > II couldn't even support 8 people, imagine the > headaches in scaling that up to a > billion.....(yes I realize Biosphere II had > scientific problems). Also, you can get > materials from the moon or asteroids in order to > avoid pushing stuff out of earths gravity well, > but you still need to figure out a way to lift > billions of people off the planet to make a dent > in the population (I'm still waiting for the > space elevator). Also consider that all previous > space stations pale in complexity to an O'Neill > cylinder (technologically and more importantly ecologically). > > I don't disagree that space is the end game > (although more for reasons involving eggs and > baskets), but my expertise is in ecology and > unless we make some changes I see the bottom > falling out of things well before we could > establish a space presence anything like the one > you describe (remember you need a highly > organized and well fed society down here to > create a space presence). I'd argue instead to > focus our efforts on feeding ourselves and > keeping the only working biosphere in the solar system (Earth) functional. > > Your assumption that human population growth is a > simple exponential function is > erroneous. Population growth is slowing down, > the popular estimates now show population > stabilizing between 2050 and 2100 likely > somewhere 8 and10 billion people (these are of > course models that need to be taken with a grain > of salt). However, feeding folks at these > population levels is not going to be easy (some > would say nightmarish). Thus rather than focus > on space, why not focus on the ocean, or even > ecological systems in general, which we are going > to have to rely on much more heavily for food in > order to keep civilization stable enough to > eventually realize a space solution or population > contraction (my preference as I don't see life on > a space station, even an O'Neill cylinder, as > attractive as one on an ecologically mature planet). > > Thanks to all who are more interested in boats > that put up with such tangential ranting, I hope they add colour to the group. > > Darren > > At 08:48 PM 27/01/2011, you wrote: > > > > > >On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 06:41:50PM -0800, Darren Bos wrote: > > > I like a lot of what you write Ben, but you have > > > this backward. We have spent a lot of time and > > > effort on space exploration, and there have been > > > beneficial spinoffs, but there are no spots > > > nearby where any significant number of people can > > > live (and our technological and scientific > > > knowledge is at a state where we can only go to > > > places that are very nearby). > > > >Like... Lagrange points? L1 is 1.5 million km from Earth, and we've > >already got three major space vehicles in orbits around it. L2? Same > >story (you've heard of the Planck and the Hershel space observatories, > >right?) Yep, they're there. And we've still got L4 and L5 to go; nearly > >infinite expansion room right there for all practical purposes. Best of > >all, they're right next to the entry points for the ITN (Interplanetary > >Transport Network), which gets us a very cheap, if not quite free, ride > >to the rest of the solar system. > > > >A single Lagrange environment composed of an O'Neill cylinder would > >support ~1 million inhabitants - and given the materials of just one of > >Jupiter's moons (e.g., Europa), we could construct several _billion_ of > >those. The experimentation with automated construction factories that > >produce O'Neill cylinders was well underway... and has now been shut > >down. > > > > > The ocean however > > > does offer far more opportunities and has seen a > > > fraction of the effort in exploration (the same > > > effort in ocean science/exploration would have a > > > similar number of spinoff benefits as space > > > exploration). The human population is growing > > > far to rapidly to make space practical, better to > > > put our efforts elsewhere. > > > >Darren... I'm sorry, I don't want to be rude in the least - but you've > >just demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic mathematics. I assume > >you're familiar with the term "exponential growth"? In case you're not, > >that's the rate at which populations grow. Even if we were capable of > >occupying _all_ the space under the ocean - and we can't, for the same > >reason that we'll never have cities at the top of Everest - we'd gain > >just a hair over twice the room we have now (although, in reality, it > >would probably be about a 50% expansion at most.) > > > >Here's the bad news: that would be _linear_ expansion - which you're > >pitting against _exponential_ expansion. Sorry, you lose: game, set, and > >match. Currently, we have a population of about ~7 billion; it's going > >to double sometime before 2100 (doubling rate is ~ 70/growth rate, which > >has averaged 1.8% since 1400.) In other words, all the effort - all the > >money spent on that ocean research and exploration - wouldn't stave off > >filling up the Earth by a hundred years. And once that's filled up, > >that's the end. > > > >Efficient construction methods in space - which is what the ultimate end > >of the space program was all about - would have made population a > >non-issue. > > > >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] > | 25150|25063|2011-01-29 11:13:59|scott|Re: thru hull for galley sink|I think that having a hose that attaches to the output and can reach below the surface so that it isn't that obvious would be the best bet. I would love to have a boat with no through hulls at all or holes of any kind at all in the hull. Including a hole for the prop shaft. scott > The only problem with this approach is pumping it out in a populated > anchorage. The sight of anything but clean water going overboard is > going to cause all sorts of reactions - all negative - as well as an > eventual visit from the water Nazis. It doesn't matter that you're doing > the same thing as everyone else; theirs isn't visible when it goes over, > while yours is an offense to God and country because it can be seen. > > Other than that, it's a great solution. Maybe having a piece of hose > that you slip over the drain the lower end of which sits in the water is > the answer. > > > 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 > | 25151|25082|2011-01-29 12:10:06|scott|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|North Americans.. :) I'm not an expert on our neighbours down south. I'm talking about citizens of the US in specific. And yes a lot of the racial issues of past decades though not gone are much much better. However there are current trends based on ethnic and political and religious ideologies that seem to be trying to take us backwards and actively working at splintering the nation along those lines. My perception is that the impetus for most of this is political in that powerful people are fostering this factionalism in an effort to create a power base for themselves. My fear is that it will reach a point of critical mass and become a self sustaining and rather violent issue. It's not just one group either... there are multiple different ethnic and even religious groups that are being manipulated like this from what I can see. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Americans? Which ones? North Americans, or South Americans? > Conflicts over abuses over differences in race etc are far less than they were, a huge improvement. Race, origins or gender no longer limits what one can do, as much as it used to, a huge improvement > | 25152|25082|2011-01-29 12:12:36|scott|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|I'm not that worried about overall population growth.... Percent growth has been falling off world wide for some years now. The scary thing now is what parts of the world have high growth vs what parts of the world have negative growth. Scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Funny how we spend so much effort in trying to figure out how to deal with an expanding population, and so little in trying to limit or reduce it. When the obvious solution is politically, and culturally taboo, we are in real trouble. That is THE problem. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: | 25153|25082|2011-01-29 12:27:10|BrdbMc@aol.com|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|Hi, In 1954 I entered a technical school and we were encourage to question and not just accept what we were being thaught.The local employment was based between the automotive and railway engineering.The subjects taught varied and some like plumbing and woodwork appeared to have no bearing on our future employment. When this matter was raised with tutors their replies were to the effect that machines would be used in industry and free up workers to pursue interests other than employment thus we were getting a broader out look.The vision was a 20 hour working week.The next point raised was money ,only being played for 20 hours work .The reply was that manufacturing would still make the same profit and some how it would be filtered down to give all a good standard of living.What a dream and what a disappointment .The years before I retired my working week was in 70 to 80 hours this was needed to give my family a fair standard of living. Until the money men run short of ways of making money on Earth I think space will remain a dream . Changing the subject ,in my email to day I received two asking for my support from a American congressman I have replied stating that after the throwing of tea in to Boston harbour we Brits had lost that right .lol Mikeafloat -----Original Message----- From: scott To: origamiboats Sent: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 16:07 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Lucas. No Origami content. Actually it's not science fiction, all the technology to do it is currently vailable and practical. Even the mass transportation of people off the planet. e now have the technology to build a beanstalk (space elevator) that could ccommodate the bulk transportation of goods and people from the planet to rbit. About 5 years ago I saw a proposed budget to build it that was in the eighbourhood of 4 trillion dollars. The only reason we haven't done more to colonise space is finances and lack of ision and will. I hope that something changes and work toward that. The return ould be tremendous... could you imagine the availability of raw materials if ou moved an asteroid to earth orbit and mined and processed it there. You could hen dropped bulk materials out of orbit to designated locations or ship them own a beanstalk. Also the technological spin-offs of having the ability to rocess raw materials and to manufacture goods in 0 gravity would make what ame out of the early space program look like peanuts. Unfortunately government and insane safety standards happened to NASA. We could lready have had most of this already if it didn't cost so much to do the implest thing because of the triple and quadruple safety systems they build nto everything. Not saying to not have safety just not to the extent and cost e have put into it. I would guess that for every dollar that actually directly elps advance us into space another 100 is spent in bureaucracy and safety and edundant testing on top of testing etc.. A good example of this is that we have a couple of private corporations that ave built and are testing existing space craft currently for a tiny fraction of hat it took nasa to do the same thing. NASA and the government are lined up to e clients of these companies as soon as they go fully operational as they will e able to lift small loads to orbit cheaper than NASA can. Scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: Ben, What you are proposing is still closer to science fiction than a technologically possible solution. Moving billions of people into space is so far from our current level of technological development that progress is likely to be slow and full of setbacks. As an example, Biosphere II couldn't even support 8 people, imagine the headaches in scaling that up to a billion.....(yes I realize Biosphere II had scientific problems). Also, you can get materials from the moon or asteroids in order to avoid pushing stuff out of earths gravity well, but you still need to figure out a way to lift billions of people off the planet to make a dent in the population (I'm still waiting for the space elevator). Also consider that all previous space stations pale in complexity to an O'Neill cylinder (technologically and more importantly ecologically). I don't disagree that space is the end game (although more for reasons involving eggs and baskets), but my expertise is in ecology and unless we make some changes I see the bottom falling out of things well before we could establish a space presence anything like the one you describe (remember you need a highly organized and well fed society down here to create a space presence). I'd argue instead to focus our efforts on feeding ourselves and keeping the only working biosphere in the solar system (Earth) functional. Your assumption that human population growth is a simple exponential function is erroneous. Population growth is slowing down, the popular estimates now show population stabilizing between 2050 and 2100 likely somewhere 8 and10 billion people (these are of course models that need to be taken with a grain of salt). However, feeding folks at these population levels is not going to be easy (some would say nightmarish). Thus rather than focus on space, why not focus on the ocean, or even ecological systems in general, which we are going to have to rely on much more heavily for food in order to keep civilization stable enough to eventually realize a space solution or population contraction (my preference as I don't see life on a space station, even an O'Neill cylinder, as attractive as one on an ecologically mature planet). Thanks to all who are more interested in boats that put up with such tangential ranting, I hope they add colour to the group. Darren At 08:48 PM 27/01/2011, you wrote: > > >On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 06:41:50PM -0800, Darren Bos wrote: > > I like a lot of what you write Ben, but you have > > this backward. We have spent a lot of time and > > effort on space exploration, and there have been > > beneficial spinoffs, but there are no spots > > nearby where any significant number of people can > > live (and our technological and scientific > > knowledge is at a state where we can only go to > > places that are very nearby). > >Like... Lagrange points? L1 is 1.5 million km from Earth, and we've >already got three major space vehicles in orbits around it. L2? Same >story (you've heard of the Planck and the Hershel space observatories, >right?) Yep, they're there. And we've still got L4 and L5 to go; nearly >infinite expansion room right there for all practical purposes. Best of >all, they're right next to the entry points for the ITN (Interplanetary >Transport Network), which gets us a very cheap, if not quite free, ride >to the rest of the solar system. > >A single Lagrange environment composed of an O'Neill cylinder would >support ~1 million inhabitants - and given the materials of just one of >Jupiter's moons (e.g., Europa), we could construct several _billion_ of >those. The experimentation with automated construction factories that >produce O'Neill cylinders was well underway... and has now been shut >down. > > > The ocean however > > does offer far more opportunities and has seen a > > fraction of the effort in exploration (the same > > effort in ocean science/exploration would have a > > similar number of spinoff benefits as space > > exploration). The human population is growing > > far to rapidly to make space practical, better to > > put our efforts elsewhere. > >Darren... I'm sorry, I don't want to be rude in the least - but you've >just demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic mathematics. I assume >you're familiar with the term "exponential growth"? In case you're not, >that's the rate at which populations grow. Even if we were capable of >occupying _all_ the space under the ocean - and we can't, for the same >reason that we'll never have cities at the top of Everest - we'd gain >just a hair over twice the room we have now (although, in reality, it >would probably be about a 50% expansion at most.) > >Here's the bad news: that would be _linear_ expansion - which you're >pitting against _exponential_ expansion. Sorry, you lose: game, set, and >match. Currently, we have a population of about ~7 billion; it's going >to double sometime before 2100 (doubling rate is ~ 70/growth rate, which >has averaged 1.8% since 1400.) In other words, all the effort - all the >money spent on that ocean research and exploration - wouldn't stave off >filling up the Earth by a hundred years. And once that's filled up, >that's the end. > >Efficient construction methods in space - which is what the ultimate end >of the space program was all about - would have made population a >non-issue. > >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] | 25154|25063|2011-01-29 13:08:45|Mark Hamill|Re: thru hull for galley sink|I have run hoses below the water line to hide the stuff coming out--however the fittings stand proud of the hull and the observation that "what sticks out gets knocked off" should be kept in mind--if all the exits were on the transom that might eliminate that concern. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: scott To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 8:13 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: thru hull for galley sink I think that having a hose that attaches to the output and can reach below the surface so that it isn't that obvious would be the best bet. I would love to have a boat with no through hulls at all or holes of any kind at all in the hull. Including a hole for the prop shaft. scott > The only problem with this approach is pumping it out in a populated > anchorage. The sight of anything but clean water going overboard is > going to cause all sorts of reactions - all negative - as well as an > eventual visit from the water Nazis. It doesn't matter that you're doing > the same thing as everyone else; theirs isn't visible when it goes over, > while yours is an offense to God and country because it can be seen. > > Other than that, it's a great solution. Maybe having a piece of hose > that you slip over the drain the lower end of which sits in the water is > the answer. > > > 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] | 25155|25082|2011-01-29 13:11:01|Barney Treadway|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|All organisms in the history of this planet have "evolved" or adapted to eventual extinction. Evolution is generally considered "progress" but seldom is progress except for the organism itself. Everyone knows monoculture is the key to disaster but we are racing down that path in all our food crops. Recklessly throwing genes together with only a cursory glance at repercussions only at greed. It will be soon that another organism finds a way to exploit our increasing interdependence and population concentrations in cities. (Look at how aids moved within just a year). The only survivors will be the folks out on the oceans with the ability to exist outside of the mainstream. And the folks in Brent boats will have even a better chance since they will actually be sailing rather than in port having some crap "approved" hardware or software replaced. :-) BrdbMc@... wrote: > >Hi, > In 1954 I entered a technical school and we were encourage to question and not just accept what we were being thaught.The local employment was based between the automotive and railway engineering.The subjects taught varied and some like plumbing and woodwork appeared to have no bearing on our future employment. > When this matter was raised with tutors their replies were to the effect that machines would be used in industry and free up workers to pursue interests other than employment thus we were getting a broader out look.The vision was a 20 hour working week.The next point raised was money ,only being played for 20 hours work .The reply was that manufacturing would still make the same profit and some how it would be filtered down to give all a good standard of living.What a dream and what a disappointment .The years before I retired my working week was in 70 to 80 hours this was needed to give my family a fair standard of living. > Until the money men run short of ways of making money on Earth I think space will remain a dream . > > Changing the subject ,in my email to day I received two asking for my support from a American congressman >I have replied stating that after the throwing of tea in to Boston harbour we Brits had lost that right .lol > >Mikeafloat > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: scott >To: origamiboats >Sent: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 16:07 >Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Lucas. No Origami content. > > >Actually it's not science fiction, all the technology to do it is currently >vailable and practical. Even the mass transportation of people off the planet. >e now have the technology to build a beanstalk (space elevator) that could >ccommodate the bulk transportation of goods and people from the planet to >rbit. About 5 years ago I saw a proposed budget to build it that was in the >eighbourhood of 4 trillion dollars. >The only reason we haven't done more to colonise space is finances and lack of >ision and will. I hope that something changes and work toward that. The return >ould be tremendous... could you imagine the availability of raw materials if >ou moved an asteroid to earth orbit and mined and processed it there. You could >hen dropped bulk materials out of orbit to designated locations or ship them >own a beanstalk. Also the technological spin-offs of having the ability to >rocess raw materials and to manufacture goods in 0 gravity would make what >ame out of the early space program look like peanuts. >Unfortunately government and insane safety standards happened to NASA. We could >lready have had most of this already if it didn't cost so much to do the >implest thing because of the triple and quadruple safety systems they build >nto everything. Not saying to not have safety just not to the extent and cost >e have put into it. I would guess that for every dollar that actually directly >elps advance us into space another 100 is spent in bureaucracy and safety and >edundant testing on top of testing etc.. >A good example of this is that we have a couple of private corporations that >ave built and are testing existing space craft currently for a tiny fraction of >hat it took nasa to do the same thing. NASA and the government are lined up to >e clients of these companies as soon as they go fully operational as they will >e able to lift small loads to orbit cheaper than NASA can. >Scott > >--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > > Ben, > > What you are proposing is still closer to science > fiction than a technologically possible > solution. Moving billions of people into space > is so far from our current level of technological > development that progress is likely to be slow > and full of setbacks. As an example, Biosphere > II couldn't even support 8 people, imagine the > headaches in scaling that up to a > billion.....(yes I realize Biosphere II had > scientific problems). Also, you can get > materials from the moon or asteroids in order to > avoid pushing stuff out of earths gravity well, > but you still need to figure out a way to lift > billions of people off the planet to make a dent > in the population (I'm still waiting for the > space elevator). Also consider that all previous > space stations pale in complexity to an O'Neill > cylinder (technologically and more importantly ecologically). > > I don't disagree that space is the end game > (although more for reasons involving eggs and > baskets), but my expertise is in ecology and > unless we make some changes I see the bottom > falling out of things well before we could > establish a space presence anything like the one > you describe (remember you need a highly > organized and well fed society down here to > create a space presence). I'd argue instead to > focus our efforts on feeding ourselves and > keeping the only working biosphere in the solar system (Earth) functional. > > Your assumption that human population growth is a > simple exponential function is > erroneous. Population growth is slowing down, > the popular estimates now show population > stabilizing between 2050 and 2100 likely > somewhere 8 and10 billion people (these are of > course models that need to be taken with a grain > of salt). However, feeding folks at these > population levels is not going to be easy (some > would say nightmarish). Thus rather than focus > on space, why not focus on the ocean, or even > ecological systems in general, which we are going > to have to rely on much more heavily for food in > order to keep civilization stable enough to > eventually realize a space solution or population > contraction (my preference as I don't see life on > a space station, even an O'Neill cylinder, as > attractive as one on an ecologically mature planet). > > Thanks to all who are more interested in boats > that put up with such tangential ranting, I hope they add colour to the group. > > Darren > > At 08:48 PM 27/01/2011, you wrote: > > > > > >On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 06:41:50PM -0800, Darren Bos wrote: > > > I like a lot of what you write Ben, but you have > > > this backward. We have spent a lot of time and > > > effort on space exploration, and there have been > > > beneficial spinoffs, but there are no spots > > > nearby where any significant number of people can > > > live (and our technological and scientific > > > knowledge is at a state where we can only go to > > > places that are very nearby). > > > >Like... Lagrange points? L1 is 1.5 million km from Earth, and we've > >already got three major space vehicles in orbits around it. L2? Same > >story (you've heard of the Planck and the Hershel space observatories, > >right?) Yep, they're there. And we've still got L4 and L5 to go; nearly > >infinite expansion room right there for all practical purposes. Best of > >all, they're right next to the entry points for the ITN (Interplanetary > >Transport Network), which gets us a very cheap, if not quite free, ride > >to the rest of the solar system. > > > >A single Lagrange environment composed of an O'Neill cylinder would > >support ~1 million inhabitants - and given the materials of just one of > >Jupiter's moons (e.g., Europa), we could construct several _billion_ of > >those. The experimentation with automated construction factories that > >produce O'Neill cylinders was well underway... and has now been shut > >down. > > > > > The ocean however > > > does offer far more opportunities and has seen a > > > fraction of the effort in exploration (the same > > > effort in ocean science/exploration would have a > > > similar number of spinoff benefits as space > > > exploration). The human population is growing > > > far to rapidly to make space practical, better to > > > put our efforts elsewhere. > > > >Darren... I'm sorry, I don't want to be rude in the least - but you've > >just demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic mathematics. I assume > >you're familiar with the term "exponential growth"? In case you're not, > >that's the rate at which populations grow. Even if we were capable of > >occupying _all_ the space under the ocean - and we can't, for the same > >reason that we'll never have cities at the top of Everest - we'd gain > >just a hair over twice the room we have now (although, in reality, it > >would probably be about a 50% expansion at most.) > > > >Here's the bad news: that would be _linear_ expansion - which you're > >pitting against _exponential_ expansion. Sorry, you lose: game, set, and > >match. Currently, we have a population of about ~7 billion; it's going > >to double sometime before 2100 (doubling rate is ~ 70/growth rate, which > >has averaged 1.8% since 1400.) In other words, all the effort - all the > >money spent on that ocean research and exploration - wouldn't stave off > >filling up the Earth by a hundred years. And once that's filled up, > >that's the end. > > > >Efficient construction methods in space - which is what the ultimate end > >of the space program was all about - would have made population a > >non-issue. > > > >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] > | 25156|25082|2011-01-29 13:37:03|P-O Gustafsson|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|> I'm not that worried about overall population growth.... Percent growth > has been falling off world wide for some years now. The scary thing now > is what parts of the world have high growth vs what parts of the world > have negative growth. Listen to Hans Rosling, he has the ability to make statistics interesting. http://www.gapminder.org/ http://www.gapminder.org/videos/hans-rosling-ted-2006-debunking-myths-about-the-third-world/ http://www.gapminder.org/videos/population-growth-explained-with-ikea-boxes/ -- P-O| 25157|25082|2011-01-29 13:40:39|Ben Okopnik|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 07:36:46PM +0100, P-O Gustafsson wrote: > > Listen to Hans Rosling, he has the ability to make statistics > interesting. http://www.gapminder.org/ > > http://www.gapminder.org/videos/hans-rosling-ted-2006-debunking-myths-about-the-third-world/ > > http://www.gapminder.org/videos/population-growth-explained-with-ikea-boxes/ If he's the fellow I'm thinking about, the one who did that animated chart showing the interrelation between health and wealth over the past few centuries, then he's definitely worth watching. Brilliant and highly entertaining, as well as very informative. 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| 25158|25158|2011-01-29 13:47:28|Denis Buggy|Re: jet drive|DEAR ALL does anybody know at what point does a jet drive become more efficient than a exposed prop . also why do prop sizes seem small for the power used -- why do I not see 4ft diam props run from gearboxes as per a car or truck --- if you watch the prop speed of a cargo vessel it is quiet slow often coupled to a giant 2 stroke engine running on fuel oil at 670 revs max and these people have it measured to the finest element as a mistake will cost millions over a 20 year life --- why are there different rules for commercial versus domestic . if the commercial recipe of a large slow prop is the correct one ---then we should use it and find the means to cover the prop or withdraw it from the water as you would lift a pto shaft on the rear of a tractor . regards Denis Buggy > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > MARKETPLACE Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25159|25082|2011-01-29 14:19:39|P-O Gustafsson|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|>> Listen to Hans Rosling, he has the ability to make statistics >> interesting. http://www.gapminder.org/ >> > http://www.gapminder.org/videos/hans-rosling-ted-2006-debunking-myths-about-the-third-world/ >> > http://www.gapminder.org/videos/population-growth-explained-with-ikea-boxes/ > > If he's the fellow I'm thinking about, the one who did that > animated chart showing the interrelation between health and wealth > over the past few centuries, then he's definitely worth watching. > Brilliant and highly entertaining, as well as very informative. Yep, that's the one. There are a number of very informative videos on that web page. Well worth watching. It will change your mind about much on this planet, in a positive way. All based on facts. -- P-O| 25160|25158|2011-01-29 14:24:13|Ben Okopnik|Re: jet drive|On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 06:47:33PM -0000, Denis Buggy wrote: > > does anybody know at what point does a jet drive become more > efficient than a exposed prop . > also why do prop sizes seem small for the power used -- why do I > not see 4ft diam props run from gearboxes as per a car or truck --- > if you watch the prop speed of a cargo vessel it is quiet slow > often coupled to a giant 2 stroke engine running on fuel oil at > 670 revs max and these people have it measured to the finest > element as a mistake will cost millions over a 20 year life --- why > are there different rules for commercial versus domestic . > if the commercial recipe of a large slow prop is the correct one > ---then we should use it and find the means to cover the prop or > withdraw it from the water as you would lift a pto shaft on the > rear of a tractor . I don't know the answer to your first question, but I think you answered the second one yourself. I agree with you about the large props and slow-turning engines - they _are_ more efficient at coupling power to the water (no real possibility of cavitation, for one thing); however, the factors that make all that _not_ work on a small boat are pretty decisive. 1) Engine size. Fast-rotating engines are much smaller and lighter than the large, slow ones. I haven't thought about the limiting design parameters at all, or whether that ratio can be made smaller (I suspect it can't), but the fact is that small boats can't afford the space for anything but a "hummingbird" engine. 2) Large props have lots of drag - and while there are mechanisms for dealing with that (e.g., a U-joint that would allow you to lift that prop out of the water, just as some fishing boats do, or a variable-pitch prop - my favorite solution!), they cost a good chunk of money and require extra work/thought. In a small boat, one of the key design parameters is user convenience; less thought and less work is taken as an improvement. Small, fast engines with tiny props are the way to go under that philosophy - and who cares that it costs you much more in fuel? Boats are a luxury purchase anyway. (Calm down, people; this is me being sarcastic. ;) A 36' boat is a wonderful thing, but there are just certain things that are just a little too big for one. I'd _love_ to have a boat that has mostly hydraulic systems, a large, slow diesel with a variable-pitch prop, the ability to use large-scale power tools as necessary, room to install enough solar panels to *really* produce enough power for daily living; a boat that's big enough that I can buy regular industrial motors, electrical panels, pumps, etc. for it without having to go to a "marine" store (and buy way over-priced crap that's not nearly as reliable or replaceable.) But, I'm not a millionaire, and I don't see how one man can take care of all that without it being a full-time job. I'm mostly satisfied with the balance that I've created on my own boat, but once in a while, I get a little wistful about the possibilities. 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| 25161|25082|2011-01-29 14:27:20|Ben Okopnik|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 08:19:22PM +0100, P-O Gustafsson wrote: > > >> Listen to Hans Rosling, he has the ability to make statistics > >> interesting. http://www.gapminder.org/ > >> > > http://www.gapminder.org/videos/hans-rosling-ted-2006-debunking-myths-about-the-third-world/ > >> > > http://www.gapminder.org/videos/population-growth-explained-with-ikea-boxes/ > > > > If he's the fellow I'm thinking about, the one who did that > > animated chart showing the interrelation between health and wealth > > over the past few centuries, then he's definitely worth watching. > > Brilliant and highly entertaining, as well as very informative. > > Yep, that's the one. There are a number of very informative videos on > that web page. Well worth watching. It will change your mind about > much on this planet, in a positive way. All based on facts. Yep, he's the man. I just watched that first TED video; wow. Double wow. Brilliantly simplified science at machine-gun speed. Serious crack for anyone as addicted to good science as I am. :) 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| 25162|25158|2011-01-29 14:48:32|BrdbMc@aol.com|Re: jet drive|Hi, The large engines on the ships I sailed on had Doxford or Sulzer engines that ran at 100rpm From Bundy Queensland to London took between 38 and 42 days and used 1000tons of heavy oil fuel When I left the Merchant Navy small coastal cargo ship were being built with engines that ran at a constant speed but had a varable pitch propeller.I believe that bigger ships are now fitted with power pods with this abilty. The canal boat I live on as a diesil engine from a BMC taxi fitted with a marinising kit.It is a comprimise as a slower engine would be more efficent,but the downside is they take up more room and wiegh twice as much. Mikeafloat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25163|25158|2011-01-29 16:17:08|Darren Bos|Re: jet drive|Dave Gerr's prop book is a great source of info for this stuff. The basic ideas are that large props are more efficient than small, but you are usually limited by clearance and drag for a sailboat. The jet drive can use smaller props because the ducting reduces tip losses and thus a ducted prop can be more efficient than a non ducted prop. However, a ducted prop or jet is much more finicky than a standard prop and all sorts of small changes in ducting and placement can radically effect efficiency. For a displacement vessel the most efficient solution without a lot of engineering is to use the largest prop you practically can. You do of course need to match rpm and pitch to the hull speed of the boat. As mentioned, for a sailboat you would want to be able to feather a very large prop or you are going to experience a lot of drag while sailing. I think most modern boats use small props because it is cheap and easy from a manufacturing perspective and the extra fuel costs are passed invisibly on to the consumer who is blissfully unaware. A great example is modern outboards, all are high rpm and some offer a very low pitch prop for displacement applications, but the best solution would be to alter the gearing to enable swinging a much larger prop. The old British Seagull motors do this and swing some amazingly large props for the horsepower of the motor, a much better solution. Darren At 10:47 AM 29/01/2011, you wrote: > > > >DEAR ALL >does anybody know at what point does a jet drive >become more efficient than a exposed prop . >also why do prop sizes seem small for the power >used -- why do I not see 4ft diam props run from >gearboxes as per a car or truck --- if you watch >the prop speed of a cargo vessel it is quiet >slow often coupled to a giant 2 stroke engine >running on fuel oil at 670 revs max and these >people have it measured to the finest element as >a mistake will cost millions over a 20 year life >--- why are there different rules for commercial versus domestic . >if the commercial recipe of a large slow prop is >the correct one ---then we should use it and >find the means to cover the prop or withdraw it >from the water as you would lift a pto shaft on the rear of a tractor . >regards Denis Buggy > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > >MARKETPLACE >Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. > >---------------------------------------------------------- > >Stay on top of your group activity without >leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25164|25158|2011-01-29 17:10:57|Kim|Re: jet drive|Hi Denis ... I too am interested in this (using a large diameter prop). My understanding is that maximum motoring efficiency in a sailboat can be achieved by attaching a low-ratio gearbox (3:1 or 4:1?) to a conventional (small) sailboat engine and using a very large diameter prop. But of course using a very large diameter prop will usually completely ruin sailing performance. I've also read that if, when sailing, you keep the motor running and have the big prop turning at a very slow speed (50 rpm? 100 rpm?), then the prop drag is totally eliminated. But small sailboat diesels don't idle slow enough, and don't like being continuously run at idle speed, so can't be used for this. But I understand that if an electric motor (instead of a diesel) was used to drive a very large diameter prop, then this scenario might be possible. Apparently electric motors are quite happy running at very slow speeds for long periods of time, and (most importantly) use very little current when doing so. If all this is true, then maybe the efficiencies of a very large diameter prop, and the advantages of having zero drag from that prop when under sail, can only be achieved in a small sailboat by using an electric motor to drive the prop? I fear that in my lifetime the price of diesel will rise so high that I won't be able to afford to buy it, so I've been wondering if I should put an electric motor in my Swain 26. In practice it's very unlikely I'll actually do that (too expensive at the moment, batteries are too heavy, etc); but an electric motor installation might let me use a really big prop! Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht _________________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > > > DEAR ALL > does anybody know at what point does a jet drive become more efficient than a exposed prop . > also why do prop sizes seem small for the power used -- why do I not see 4ft diam props run from gearboxes as per a car or truck --- if you watch the prop speed of a cargo vessel it is quiet slow often coupled to a giant 2 stroke engine running on fuel oil at 670 revs max and these people have it measured to the finest element as a mistake will cost millions over a 20 year life --- why are there different rules for commercial versus domestic . > if the commercial recipe of a large slow prop is the correct one ---then we should use it and find the means to cover the prop or withdraw it from the water as you would lift a pto shaft on the rear of a tractor . > regards Denis Buggy _________________________________________________________________ | 25165|25158|2011-01-29 17:28:23|Ben Okopnik|Re: jet drive|On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 10:10:53PM -0000, Kim wrote: > > My understanding is that maximum motoring efficiency in a sailboat can > be achieved by attaching a low-ratio gearbox (3:1 or 4:1?) to a > conventional (small) sailboat engine and using a very large diameter > prop. But of course using a very large diameter prop will usually > completely ruin sailing performance. A variable-pitch prop, when feathered, should eliminate pretty much all the drag. Bonus: if you install one, you won't need a transmission. > But I understand that if an electric motor (instead of a diesel) was > used to drive a very large diameter prop, then this scenario might be > possible. Apparently electric motors are quite happy running at very > slow speeds for long periods of time, and (most importantly) use very > little current when doing so. I met a South African cruiser, many years ago, who had rigged a few pulleys and cams in that area so he could couple/decouple a set of systems, like so: 1) Engine output to prop 2) Prop to (decent-sized) generator 3) Small motor (~10HP, if I recall) to generator 4) Small motor to prop 5) Engine output to generator Very smart and fairly simple design. Obviously, it allowed him to use the small motor as a backup if his main engine failed - and he could easily charge his batteries while sailing without having an additional gadget hanging off his stern. He could also generate *very* serious power by driving the generator directly with the engine. All of this was easily accessible from a panel in the passageway next to the engine. > If all this is true, then maybe the efficiencies of a very large > diameter prop, and the advantages of having zero drag from that prop > when under sail, can only be achieved in a small sailboat by using an > electric motor to drive the prop? You'd be losing a lot of whatever efficiency you gain - and very likely, more than you can possibly gain - in the dual power conversion. 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| 25166|25158|2011-01-29 17:41:11|Gary H. Lucas|Re: jet drive|Everybody seems to ignore that prop is screw turning in water. The pitch of a big ship prop is huge, thus it doesn’t need to turn as fast for the same speed. Aren’t we talking sailboats? A big prop is more efficient for MOTORING, for sailing it is much less efficient. So a small high speed prop is actually better most of the time. Gary H. Lucas From: BrdbMc@... Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 2:48 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive Hi, The large engines on the ships I sailed on had Doxford or Sulzer engines that ran at 100rpm From Bundy Queensland to London took between 38 and 42 days and used 1000tons of heavy oil fuel When I left the Merchant Navy small coastal cargo ship were being built with engines that ran at a constant speed but had a varable pitch propeller.I believe that bigger ships are now fitted with power pods with this abilty. The canal boat I live on as a diesil engine from a BMC taxi fitted with a marinising kit.It is a comprimise as a slower engine would be more efficent,but the downside is they take up more room and wiegh twice as much. Mikeafloat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25167|25158|2011-01-29 18:54:55|Darren Bos|Re: jet drive|Nobody is ignoring the drag of a large diameter prop, you either feather it or pull it out of the water (seems awkward). The small dia prop is a holdover from when folding and feathering props were not easily available. Small diameter fixed-pitch props persist because it is still the cheapest to manufacture and install. Depending on how much motoring you do, it might be cheapest overall to have a small two blade prop and park it aligned with the keel/skeg. However, there are other options. I'm still years away from building my boat, but am beginning to do the research involved with a hybrid-electric system. Electric motors can be coupled with large props more simply than with diesel and the advantages gained by a large prop could compensate for some of the losses associated when generating electricity from a diesel generator (when motoring requirements exceed battery capacity). Lots of ways to skin this cat. Darren At 02:41 PM 29/01/2011, you wrote: > > >Everybody seems to ignore that prop is screw >turning in water. The pitch of a big ship prop >is huge, thus it doesn’t need to turn as fast >for the same speed. Aren’t we talking >sailboats? A big prop is more efficient for >MOTORING, for sailing it is much less efficient. >So a small high speed prop is actually better most of the time. > >Gary H. Lucas > >From: BrdbMc@... >Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 2:48 PM >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive > >Hi, >The large engines on the ships I sailed on had >Doxford or Sulzer engines that ran at 100rpm > From Bundy Queensland to London took between 38 > and 42 days and used 1000tons of heavy oil fuel >When I left the Merchant Navy small coastal >cargo ship were being built with engines that ran at a constant speed >but had a varable pitch propeller.I believe that >bigger ships are now fitted with power pods with this abilty. >The canal boat I live on as a diesil engine from >a BMC taxi fitted with a marinising kit.It is a >comprimise as a slower engine would be more >efficent,but the downside is they take up more room and wiegh twice as much. > >Mikeafloat > >[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]| 25168|25158|2011-01-29 19:11:35|Aaron Williams|Re: jet drive|Darren Go check out electric boats on yahoo groups there is a ton of info for going electric. There is a Brent boat there. I descided not to do that myself due to the tides where I live. The generator and battery cost are to much Aaron  ________________________________ From: Darren Bos To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, January 29, 2011 2:54:45 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive   Nobody is ignoring the drag of a large diameter prop, you either feather it or pull it out of the water (seems awkward). The small dia prop is a holdover from when folding and feathering props were not easily available. Small diameter fixed-pitch props persist because it is still the cheapest to manufacture and install. Depending on how much motoring you do, it might be cheapest overall to have a small two blade prop and park it aligned with the keel/skeg. However, there are other options. I'm still years away from building my boat, but am beginning to do the research involved with a hybrid-electric system. Electric motors can be coupled with large props more simply than with diesel and the advantages gained by a large prop could compensate for some of the losses associated when generating electricity from a diesel generator (when motoring requirements exceed battery capacity). Lots of ways to skin this cat. Darren . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25169|17949|2011-01-29 19:30:43|brentswain38|Re: Steel prices|I'm sure livery stable owners had a similar response to Henry Ford, for the same reasons. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > The price of steel here is up 20% in the last month > I keep kicking my self for not starting. > But then I was ready to start in 2006. I had the price for all the steel and I was about a week away for ordering the steel for a 42' gazelle. I just happened upon a post from Brent, on another group, and then half a dozen members started to tear strips off of him. > Wow! This guy must be a real quack or these guy must be really afraid of him. > Well I am not on the other group any more and I don't have a rusting hull in a yard that looks like a starved horse and I am paying rent at. I have all the detailing done for my BS 36 and the engine is almost rebuilt. So I am going to spend maybe $1000 more for the steel then I would have last month? That is not so bad! > James > > --- On Fri, 1/28/11, brentswain38 wrote: > > > From: brentswain38 > Subject: [origamiboats] Steel prices > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Friday, January 28, 2011, 6:59 PM > > >   > > > > With the flooding of Aussie Coal mines, and the dependence on Aussi coal by the steel industries, it is being predicted that steel prices will begin to rise. > Maybe time to buy what you need, before it does. > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25170|25082|2011-01-29 19:38:25|brentswain38|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|We forget that the "Good old days " were only good for a minority who were in a priviledged racial or economic group, and were bad old days for so many more. I prefer equality ,eliminating the need for so much conflict, or seriously reducing it. I don't have to step on anyone or rule over anyone to get my meager needs. If you do, the re-examine what you really need ,and what you value more. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > > North Americans.. :) I'm not an expert on our neighbours down south. > > I'm talking about citizens of the US in specific. And yes a lot of the racial issues of past decades though not gone are much much better. However there are current trends based on ethnic and political and religious ideologies that seem to be trying to take us backwards and actively working at splintering the nation along those lines. My perception is that the impetus for most of this is political in that powerful people are fostering this factionalism in an effort to create a power base for themselves. My fear is that it will reach a point of critical mass and become a self sustaining and rather violent issue. It's not just one group either... there are multiple different ethnic and even religious groups that are being manipulated like this from what I can see. > > scott > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Americans? Which ones? North Americans, or South Americans? > > Conflicts over abuses over differences in race etc are far less than they were, a huge improvement. Race, origins or gender no longer limits what one can do, as much as it used to, a huge improvement > > > | 25171|25063|2011-01-29 19:41:07|brentswain38|Re: thru hull for galley sink|On a steel hull , it's easy to weld a piece of ss elbow in front of any such thru hull, sticking out further than the hose. Even a heavy bolt there will deflect anything which may hit it. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > I have run hoses below the water line to hide the stuff coming out--however the fittings stand proud of the hull and the observation that "what sticks out gets knocked off" should be kept in mind--if all the exits were on the transom that might eliminate that concern. MarkH > ----- Original Message ----- > From: scott > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 8:13 AM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: thru hull for galley sink > > > > I think that having a hose that attaches to the output and can reach below the surface so that it isn't that obvious would be the best bet. I would love to have a boat with no through hulls at all or holes of any kind at all in the hull. Including a hole for the prop shaft. > > scott > > > The only problem with this approach is pumping it out in a populated > > anchorage. The sight of anything but clean water going overboard is > > going to cause all sorts of reactions - all negative - as well as an > > eventual visit from the water Nazis. It doesn't matter that you're doing > > the same thing as everyone else; theirs isn't visible when it goes over, > > while yours is an offense to God and country because it can be seen. > > > > Other than that, it's a great solution. Maybe having a piece of hose > > that you slip over the drain the lower end of which sits in the water is > > the answer. > > > > > > 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] > | 25172|25158|2011-01-29 19:49:17|brentswain38|Re: jet drive|Props on sailing craft are always a compromise between speed and sailing drag , something cargo vessels don't have to consider, as they don't often sail. When a prop blade whacks water at 1,000 RPM it is whacking something which, unlike air , is incompressible and has 800 times the density. Go even slightly over sized on a prop and your engine will overload, overheat, and blow back smoke, the carbon it was unable to burn at the maximum RPMs it can attain. Don' t underestimate how solid water is, when whacked at 1,000 RPM Pretty solid! --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > > > DEAR ALL > does anybody know at what point does a jet drive become more efficient than a exposed prop . > also why do prop sizes seem small for the power used -- why do I not see 4ft diam props run from gearboxes as per a car or truck --- if you watch the prop speed of a cargo vessel it is quiet slow often coupled to a giant 2 stroke engine running on fuel oil at 670 revs max and these people have it measured to the finest element as a mistake will cost millions over a 20 year life --- why are there different rules for commercial versus domestic . > if the commercial recipe of a large slow prop is the correct one ---then we should use it and find the means to cover the prop or withdraw it from the water as you would lift a pto shaft on the rear of a tractor . > regards Denis Buggy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > MARKETPLACE > Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25173|25158|2011-01-29 19:53:10|brentswain38|Re: jet drive|Tank tests comparing fixed props to spinning props showed that the spinning prop has far more drag than a locked prop, more like the drag of a solid disk, the diameter of the spinning prop. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Denis ... > > I too am interested in this (using a large diameter prop). > > My understanding is that maximum motoring efficiency in a sailboat can be achieved by attaching a low-ratio gearbox (3:1 or 4:1?) to a conventional (small) sailboat engine and using a very large diameter prop. But of course using a very large diameter prop will usually completely ruin sailing performance. > > I've also read that if, when sailing, you keep the motor running and have the big prop turning at a very slow speed (50 rpm? 100 rpm?), then the prop drag is totally eliminated. But small sailboat diesels don't idle slow enough, and don't like being continuously run at idle speed, so can't be used for this. > > But I understand that if an electric motor (instead of a diesel) was used to drive a very large diameter prop, then this scenario might be possible. Apparently electric motors are quite happy running at very slow speeds for long periods of time, and (most importantly) use very little current when doing so. > > If all this is true, then maybe the efficiencies of a very large diameter prop, and the advantages of having zero drag from that prop when under sail, can only be achieved in a small sailboat by using an electric motor to drive the prop? > > I fear that in my lifetime the price of diesel will rise so high that I won't be able to afford to buy it, so I've been wondering if I should put an electric motor in my Swain 26. In practice it's very unlikely I'll actually do that (too expensive at the moment, batteries are too heavy, etc); but an electric motor installation might let me use a really big prop! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > _________________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > > > > > > DEAR ALL > > does anybody know at what point does a jet drive become more efficient than a exposed prop . > > also why do prop sizes seem small for the power used -- why do I not see 4ft diam props run from gearboxes as per a car or truck --- if you watch the prop speed of a cargo vessel it is quiet slow often coupled to a giant 2 stroke engine running on fuel oil at 670 revs max and these people have it measured to the finest element as a mistake will cost millions over a 20 year life --- why are there different rules for commercial versus domestic . > > if the commercial recipe of a large slow prop is the correct one ---then we should use it and find the means to cover the prop or withdraw it from the water as you would lift a pto shaft on the rear of a tractor . > > regards Denis Buggy > _________________________________________________________________ > | 25174|25158|2011-01-29 20:31:00|Marc|Re: jet drive|There is no magic number at which a jet becomes better than an open propeller. You have to do the tradeoff for your particular application. To achieve the highest possible propulsive efficiency, you need the highest possible mass flow through the propulsor. Large open propellers are one way of achieving this, but there is a penalty in the form of swirl in the slipstream, because of the need to turn the large propeller slowly to avoid cavitation at the tips. Also, large propellers are expensive in their own right and often require gearing to match them to the engine. If you have to lift the prop out of the water you need a double Cardan joint (at least) on the propeller shaft where it bends, and that is a further expense. A waterjet can achieve high mass flows with a much smaller, directly driven rotor and no excrescences, provided that it is properly designed and matched to the vessel. This is a big advantage in shallow water and/or water that holds snags or floaters that might easily damage an open prop. Jets also allow thrust vectoring and thrust reversal without a variable-pitch rotor. On the other hand, design of a jet drive is tricky, and a badly designed or badly matched jet drive is an expensive turkey that is hard to fix. Marc de Piolenc co-author, Ducted Fan Design, Volume 1 --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > >does anybody know at what point does a jet drive become more efficient than a exposed prop . > also why do prop sizes seem small for the power used -- why do I not see 4ft diam props run from gearboxes as per a car or truck --- if you watch the prop speed of a cargo vessel it is quiet slow often coupled to a giant 2 stroke engine running on fuel oil at 670 revs max and these people have it measured to the finest element as a mistake will cost millions over a 20 year life --- why are there different rules for commercial versus domestic . > if the commercial recipe of a large slow prop is the correct one ---then we should use it and find the means to cover the prop or withdraw it from the water as you would lift a pto shaft on the rear of a tractor . > regards Denis Buggy | 25175|25158|2011-01-30 06:02:24|Kim|Re: jet drive|Brent: Yes, you're absolutely correct - a spinning (freewheeling) prop (engine off, gearbox in neutral) will definitely create more drag, when sailing, than if the prop is locked (engine off, forward gear engaged). However, I didn't mean a freewheeling prop. I meant that the prop was being driven by an engine; but only at an extremely low rpm (just enough to overcome the drag of the prop). Unfortunately I can no longer find the web site where I read the technical details, so I can't give a URL. They were claiming that if an electric motor was used for this it's current draw was so low (as it was barely working) a solar panel could keep up with it. Of course I don't know if any of this was true or factual; but I thought it was an interesting idea. Ben: Sounds like your South African friend had a pretty good setup; but there's no way I could fit that sort of gear in my little 26-footer. Neither could I afford it! :-) However, your suggestion to use a variable-pitch prop is interesting. Decades ago variable-pitch props seemed to have a reputation for being tricky and unreliable. Do you think that's still true? They were certainly extremely expensive, and seem to be rare on yachts here in Australia. Not needing a gearbox with one of these would be a truly huge bonus (and would more than compensate the higher cost of the prop)! I imagine that would enable almost any type of diesel engine (combined with Brent's skeg-cooling system) to be used? But wouldn't it be advantageous to have some means of engaging neutral (ie: stopping the prop shaft spinning without having to turn the engine off)? Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Tank tests comparing fixed props to spinning props showed that the spinning prop has far more drag than a locked prop, more like the drag of a solid disk, the diameter of the spinning prop. ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 10:10:53PM -0000, Kim wrote: > > > > My understanding is that maximum motoring efficiency in a sailboat can > > be achieved by attaching a low-ratio gearbox (3:1 or 4:1?) to a > > conventional (small) sailboat engine and using a very large diameter > > prop. But of course using a very large diameter prop will usually > > completely ruin sailing performance. > > A variable-pitch prop, when feathered, should eliminate pretty much all > the drag. Bonus: if you install one, you won't need a transmission. > > > But I understand that if an electric motor (instead of a diesel) was > > used to drive a very large diameter prop, then this scenario might be > > possible. Apparently electric motors are quite happy running at very > > slow speeds for long periods of time, and (most importantly) use very > > little current when doing so. > > I met a South African cruiser, many years ago, who had rigged a few > pulleys and cams in that area so he could couple/decouple a set of > systems, like so: > > 1) Engine output to prop > 2) Prop to (decent-sized) generator > 3) Small motor (~10HP, if I recall) to generator > 4) Small motor to prop > 5) Engine output to generator > > Very smart and fairly simple design. Obviously, it allowed him to use > the small motor as a backup if his main engine failed - and he could > easily charge his batteries while sailing without having an additional > gadget hanging off his stern. He could also generate *very* serious > power by driving the generator directly with the engine. All of this was > easily accessible from a panel in the passageway next to the engine. > > > If all this is true, then maybe the efficiencies of a very large > > diameter prop, and the advantages of having zero drag from that prop > > when under sail, can only be achieved in a small sailboat by using an > > electric motor to drive the prop? > > You'd be losing a lot of whatever efficiency you gain - and very likely, > more than you can possibly gain - in the dual power conversion. > > > 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 ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Denis ... > > I too am interested in this (using a large diameter prop). > > My understanding is that maximum motoring efficiency in a sailboat can be achieved by attaching a low-ratio gearbox (3:1 or 4:1?) to a conventional (small) sailboat engine and using a very large diameter prop. But of course using a very large diameter prop will usually completely ruin sailing performance. > > I've also read that if, when sailing, you keep the motor running and have the big prop turning at a very slow speed (50 rpm? 100 rpm?), then the prop drag is totally eliminated. But small sailboat diesels don't idle slow enough, and don't like being continuously run at idle speed, so can't be used for this. > > But I understand that if an electric motor (instead of a diesel) was used to drive a very large diameter prop, then this scenario might be possible. Apparently electric motors are quite happy running at very slow speeds for long periods of time, and (most importantly) use very little current when doing so. > > If all this is true, then maybe the efficiencies of a very large diameter prop, and the advantages of having zero drag from that prop when under sail, can only be achieved in a small sailboat by using an electric motor to drive the prop? > > I fear that in my lifetime the price of diesel will rise so high that I won't be able to afford to buy it, so I've been wondering if I should put an electric motor in my Swain 26. In practice it's very unlikely I'll actually do that (too expensive at the moment, batteries are too heavy, etc); but an electric motor installation might let me use a really big prop! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > _______________________________________________________________ | 25176|25158|2011-01-30 06:10:06|Kim|Re: jet drive|Hi Darren ... Talking of hybrid propulsion systems for boats, I thought this Yanmar/electric setup was pretty interesting ... http://www.hybrid-marine.co.uk/resources/Yanmar+hybrid+brochure.pdf Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > > Nobody is ignoring the drag of a large diameter > prop, you either feather it or pull it out of the > water (seems awkward). The small dia prop is a > holdover from when folding and feathering props > were not easily available. Small diameter > fixed-pitch props persist because it is still the > cheapest to manufacture and install. Depending > on how much motoring you do, it might be cheapest > overall to have a small two blade prop and park > it aligned with the keel/skeg. However, there > are other options. I'm still years away from > building my boat, but am beginning to do the > research involved with a hybrid-electric > system. Electric motors can be coupled with > large props more simply than with diesel and the > advantages gained by a large prop could > compensate for some of the losses associated when > generating electricity from a diesel generator > (when motoring requirements exceed battery > capacity). Lots of ways to skin this cat. > > Darren ______________________________________________________________ | 25177|25082|2011-01-30 06:26:56|scott|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|I think it is unreasonable to think those living on boats will have any different long term chance of survival than those on land.. short term yes.. I can see that. Even as simple as Brent's boats are there is still many thousands of things we depend on that civilisation provides. Just a sheet of steel depends on a very long chain of technology much less welding rods, welders, paints, etc.. if the end of civilisation came and we went back hundreds or thousands of years technology wise you would be much better served having a wood boat. At least you would be able to repair it with a few basic hand tools. How many years would a steel boat last if you no longer had access to epoxy to seal it. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Barney Treadway wrote: > > All organisms in the history of this planet have "evolved" or adapted to eventual extinction. Evolution is generally considered "progress" but seldom is progress except for the organism itself. Everyone knows monoculture is the key to disaster but we are racing down that path in all our food crops. Recklessly throwing genes together with only a cursory glance at repercussions only at greed. It will be soon that another organism finds a way to exploit our increasing interdependence and population concentrations in cities. (Look at how aids moved within just a year). > > The only survivors will be the folks out on the oceans with the ability to exist outside of the mainstream. And the folks in Brent boats will have even a better chance since they will actually be sailing rather than in port having some crap "approved" hardware or software replaced. :-) > > BrdbMc@... wrote: > | 25178|25082|2011-01-30 06:27:56|scott|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|I've seen him and yes... his stuff is very interesting. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, P-O Gustafsson wrote: > > > > I'm not that worried about overall population growth.... Percent growth > > has been falling off world wide for some years now. The scary thing now > > is what parts of the world have high growth vs what parts of the world > > have negative growth. > > Listen to Hans Rosling, he has the ability to make statistics > interesting. http://www.gapminder.org/ > > http://www.gapminder.org/videos/hans-rosling-ted-2006-debunking-myths-about-the-third-world/ > > http://www.gapminder.org/videos/population-growth-explained-with-ikea-boxes/ > > -- > P-O > | 25179|25082|2011-01-30 06:31:42|scott|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|I'm not sure what your point is.. I wasn't really talking good old days vs today. On that subject though I am in agreement.. Much prefer today to the past in regards to basic civil rights along gender or racial lines. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > We forget that the "Good old days " were only good for a minority who were in a priviledged racial or economic group, and were bad old days for so many more. > I prefer equality ,eliminating the need for so much conflict, or seriously reducing it. I don't have to step on anyone or rule over anyone to get my meager needs. If you do, the re-examine what you really need ,and what you value more. > | 25180|25063|2011-01-30 06:35:11|scott|Re: thru hull for galley sink|The pardys boat has the discharge coming out of the side of the coach roof of their boat with it then draining out a scupper from the side deck... :( not sure I would like that arrangement. it seems kinda odoriferous as well as it would need to be scrubbed down after every pump out.. However a hose coming out and then running out the scupper might be doable. I'm thinking something permanently built into the transom would be the easiest in the long term to use and care for. Scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > I have run hoses below the water line to hide the stuff coming out--however the fittings stand proud of the hull and the observation that "what sticks out gets knocked off" should be kept in mind--if all the exits were on the transom that might eliminate that concern. MarkH | 25181|25158|2011-01-30 06:46:10|scott|Re: jet drive|My personal desire for power for a sail boat would be two electric motors on mounts on the transom that could be raised totally out of the water. Then a generator to run them for long trips and a mid sized battery bank that you could motor off of for a least 3 or 4 hours as well as act as a large house bank. I have always loved using dual prop boats for close in manoeuvrability. Two motors would give you redundancy. Being able to pull them out of the water and having a boat designed with no prop or prop aperture when sailing would give you better performance. The downside is that you have added the weight of two electric motors and mounts that raise and lower to the transom.. I think you could do if though in the 200 lbs range. not to bad especially if the boat was designed that way.. batteries could be built right into a vented and sealed compartment in the keel to act as ballast. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > > Nobody is ignoring the drag of a large diameter > prop, you either feather it or pull it out of the > water (seems awkward). The small dia prop is a > holdover from when folding and feathering props > were not easily available. Small diameter > fixed-pitch props persist because it is still the > cheapest to manufacture and install. Depending > on how much motoring you do, it might be cheapest > overall to have a small two blade prop and park > it aligned with the keel/skeg. However, there > are other options. I'm still years away from > building my boat, but am beginning to do the > research involved with a hybrid-electric > system. Electric motors can be coupled with > large props more simply than with diesel and the > advantages gained by a large prop could > compensate for some of the losses associated when > generating electricity from a diesel generator > (when motoring requirements exceed battery > capacity). Lots of ways to skin this cat. > > Darren > > At 02:41 PM 29/01/2011, you wrote: > > > > > >Everybody seems to ignore that prop is screw > >turning in water. The pitch of a big ship prop > >is huge, thus it doesn’t need to turn as fast > >for the same speed. Aren’t we talking > >sailboats? A big prop is more efficient for > >MOTORING, for sailing it is much less efficient. > >So a small high speed prop is actually better most of the time. > > > >Gary H. Lucas > > > >From: BrdbMc@... > >Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 2:48 PM > >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive > > > >Hi, > >The large engines on the ships I sailed on had > >Doxford or Sulzer engines that ran at 100rpm > > From Bundy Queensland to London took between 38 > > and 42 days and used 1000tons of heavy oil fuel > >When I left the Merchant Navy small coastal > >cargo ship were being built with engines that ran at a constant speed > >but had a varable pitch propeller.I believe that > >bigger ships are now fitted with power pods with this abilty. > >The canal boat I live on as a diesil engine from > >a BMC taxi fitted with a marinising kit.It is a > >comprimise as a slower engine would be more > >efficent,but the downside is they take up more room and wiegh twice as much. > > > >Mikeafloat > > > >[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] > | 25182|25158|2011-01-30 09:58:01|Matt Malone|Re: Motor - prop - generator - small motor|Ben, I few photographs of that would be very interesting to look at. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:28:11 -0500 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive .... I met a South African cruiser, many years ago, who had rigged a few pulleys and cams in that area so he could couple/decouple a set of systems, like so: 1) Engine output to prop 2) Prop to (decent-sized) generator 3) Small motor (~10HP, if I recall) to generator 4) Small motor to prop 5) Engine output to generator Very smart and fairly simple design. Obviously, it allowed him to use the small motor as a backup if his main engine failed - and he could easily charge his batteries while sailing without having an additional gadget hanging off his stern. He could also generate *very* serious power by driving the generator directly with the engine. All of this was easily accessible from a panel in the passageway next to the engine. ...... 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]| 25183|25158|2011-01-30 11:11:39|Aaron Williams|Re: jet drive|Scot Its is a great idea but go over to the electric boat group and get enlightened about what it takes to do what you are asking. It can be done if you have enough money. Building in space for batteries in the keel is great but lead acid need maintanence AGM have there issues as was as the new types of Lithium. It does take a bit more power than you may think. Aaron ________________________________ From: scott To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, January 30, 2011 2:46:07 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive   My personal desire for power for a sail boat would be two electric motors on mounts on the transom that could be raised totally out of the water. Then a generator to run them for long trips and a mid sized battery bank that you could motor off of for a least 3 or 4 hours as well as act as a large house bank. I have always loved using dual prop boats for close in manoeuvrability. Two motors would give you redundancy. Being able to pull them out of the water and having a boat designed with no prop or prop aperture when sailing would give you better performance. The downside is that you have added the weight of two electric motors and mounts that raise and lower to the transom.. I think you could do if though in the 200 lbs range. not to bad especially if the boat was designed that way.. batteries could be built right into a vented and sealed compartment in the keel to act as ballast. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > > Nobody is ignoring the drag of a large diameter > prop, you either feather it or pull it out of the > water (seems awkward). The small dia prop is a > holdover from when folding and feathering props > were not easily available. Small diameter > fixed-pitch props persist because it is still the > cheapest to manufacture and install. Depending > on how much motoring you do, it might be cheapest > overall to have a small two blade prop and park > it aligned with the keel/skeg. However, there > are other options. I'm still years away from > building my boat, but am beginning to do the > research involved with a hybrid-electric > system. Electric motors can be coupled with > large props more simply than with diesel and the > advantages gained by a large prop could > compensate for some of the losses associated when > generating electricity from a diesel generator > (when motoring requirements exceed battery > capacity). Lots of ways to skin this cat. > > Darren > > At 02:41 PM 29/01/2011, you wrote: > > > > > >Everybody seems to ignore that prop is screw > >turning in water. The pitch of a big ship prop > >is huge, thus it doesn’t need to turn as fast > >for the same speed. Aren’t we talking > >sailboats? A big prop is more efficient for > >MOTORING, for sailing it is much less efficient. > >So a small high speed prop is actually better most of the time. > > > >Gary H. Lucas > > > >From: BrdbMc@... > >Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 2:48 PM > >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive > > > >Hi, > >The large engines on the ships I sailed on had > >Doxford or Sulzer engines that ran at 100rpm > > From Bundy Queensland to London took between 38 > > and 42 days and used 1000tons of heavy oil fuel > >When I left the Merchant Navy small coastal > >cargo ship were being built with engines that ran at a constant speed > >but had a varable pitch propeller.I believe that > >bigger ships are now fitted with power pods with this abilty. > >The canal boat I live on as a diesil engine from > >a BMC taxi fitted with a marinising kit.It is a > >comprimise as a slower engine would be more > >efficent,but the downside is they take up more room and wiegh twice as much. > > > >Mikeafloat > > > >[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] | 25184|25158|2011-01-30 13:27:14|wild_explorer|Boat power system (Re: jet drive)|About open propeller (standard solution): You need to start from what power your boat needs to reach expected speed (usually limited by hull's LOA and displacement). Reasonable power is around 2-3hp per tonne of displacement. You can use online Max Displacement Hull Speed calculators to get an idea what your speed limit is. Then you need to take a look at "power system as whole" (not just engine or propeller). They will affect each other. DIY builder is limited by 2 things: propeller aperture size and available engine. If you do not have engine - start with propeller size. If you already have the engine - you need to find most efficient propeller of needed size. I saw something for propeller calculation in file section (do not know how good it is) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/maths%20%26%20calculations/ Do not try to compare sailboat and big ships. Big ships have low RPM engines, big efficient props and no gear boxes. All designed to cut power loses. It is possible on big ship, because power system is small in relation to its big hulls. Not the case with sailboat. You can use any power system for sailboat, but it will be trade off between efficiency, complexity, size, drag. Just remember that main power system for sailboat are sails ;)) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Denis ... > > I too am interested in this (using a large diameter prop). > > My understanding is that maximum motoring efficiency in a sailboat can be achieved by attaching a low-ratio gearbox (3:1 or 4:1?) to a conventional (small) sailboat engine and using a very large diameter prop. But of course using a very large diameter prop will usually completely ruin sailing performance. > | 25185|25158|2011-01-30 13:55:56|wild_explorer|Electric propulsion systems (Re: jet drive)|I like when something old finds its new life. Just with slightly different spin :). Diesel-Electrical and Turbine-Electrical power/propulsion systems were used on icebreakers for 40-50 years already, in submarines even longer. It did not have "hybrid" label though ;) Only one concern - electricity and salt water is a bad mix. Especially on small sailboat. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Talking of hybrid propulsion systems for boats, I thought this Yanmar/electric setup was pretty interesting ... > > http://www.hybrid-marine.co.uk/resources/Yanmar+hybrid+brochure.pdf > > Cheers ... > > Kim. | 25186|22084|2011-01-30 14:05:13|SHANE ROTHWELL|Jet Drive|If you are really concerned about the cost of fuel making it a non option at some point in the future, if you are building anything, just put a fitting on the ttransom for a yue-loh, just remember you need the room to stand to it. I'd immagine a clamp style fitting that fits over the bullworks, with a riding pin, of  pipe ,that you lash the yue-loh to, because you could then slide it along the bullworks, ininitely adjustable.  do whatever with the rest, this way you've got redudnancy. easy.     Re: jet drive Posted by: "Kim" kimdxx@...   kimdxx Sat Jan 29, 2011 2:10 pm (PST) Hi Denis ... I too am interested in this (using a large diameter prop). My understanding is that maximum motoring efficiency in a sailboat can be achieved by attaching a low-ratio gearbox (3:1 or 4:1?) to a conventional (small) sailboat engine and using a very large diameter prop. But of course using a very large diameter prop will usually completely ruin sailing performance. I've also read that if, when sailing, you keep the motor running and have the big prop turning at a very slow speed (50 rpm? 100 rpm?), then the prop drag is totally eliminated. But small sailboat diesels don't idle slow enough, and don't like being continuously run at idle speed, so can't be used for this. But I understand that if an electric motor (instead of a diesel) was used to drive a very large diameter prop, then this scenario might be possible. Apparently electric motors are quite happy running at very slow speeds for long periods of time, and (most importantly) use very little current when doing so. If all this is true, then maybe the efficiencies of a very large diameter prop, and the advantages of having zero drag from that prop when under sail, can only be achieved in a small sailboat by using an electric motor to drive the prop? I fear that in my lifetime the price of diesel will rise so high that I won't be able to afford to buy it, so I've been wondering if I should put an electric motor in my Swain 26. In practice it's very unlikely I'll actually do that (too expensive at the moment, batteries are too heavy, etc); but an electric motor installation might let me use a really big prop! Cheers ... Kim.| 25187|25082|2011-01-30 14:17:27|wild_explorer|Longetivity of steel boat (Re: Lucas. No Origami content.)|Standard numbers of reducing metal thickness because of rust for steel ocean boats (without special protection) = 0.2mm/year 5 years of usage = 1mm loss in metal thickness. You do the math. If I remember correctly, minimal recommended steel plate for the hull (for small ocean boat) is 3mm. Lifetime of commercial steel boat is 12-24 years (depends on level of steel protection). --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > How many years would a steel boat last if you no longer had access to epoxy to seal it. > | 25188|25158|2011-01-30 14:20:54|James Pronk|Re: jet drive|Was it Saab that had a variable-pitch prop with no gearbox and a slow rpm diesel? I think there was one on ebay some time ago. James  --- On Sun, 1/30/11, Kim wrote: From: Kim Subject: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Sunday, January 30, 2011, 6:02 AM   Ben: Sounds like your South African friend had a pretty good setup; but there's no way I could fit that sort of gear in my little 26-footer. Neither could I afford it! :-) However, your suggestion to use a variable-pitch prop is interesting. Decades ago variable-pitch props seemed to have a reputation for being tricky and unreliable. Do you think that's still true? They were certainly extremely expensive, and seem to be rare on yachts here in Australia. Not needing a gearbox with one of these would be a truly huge bonus (and would more than compensate the higher cost of the prop)! I imagine that would enable almost any type of diesel engine (combined with Brent's skeg-cooling system) to be used? But wouldn't it be advantageous to have some means of engaging neutral (ie: stopping the prop shaft spinning without having to turn the engine off)? Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht __________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Tank tests comparing fixed props to spinning props showed that the spinning prop has far more drag than a locked prop, more like the drag of a solid disk, the diameter of the spinning prop. __________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 10:10:53PM -0000, Kim wrote: > > > > My understanding is that maximum motoring efficiency in a sailboat can > > be achieved by attaching a low-ratio gearbox (3:1 or 4:1?) to a > > conventional (small) sailboat engine and using a very large diameter > > prop. But of course using a very large diameter prop will usually > > completely ruin sailing performance. > > A variable-pitch prop, when feathered, should eliminate pretty much all > the drag. Bonus: if you install one, you won't need a transmission. > > > But I understand that if an electric motor (instead of a diesel) was > > used to drive a very large diameter prop, then this scenario might be > > possible. Apparently electric motors are quite happy running at very > > slow speeds for long periods of time, and (most importantly) use very > > little current when doing so. > > I met a South African cruiser, many years ago, who had rigged a few > pulleys and cams in that area so he could couple/decouple a set of > systems, like so: > > 1) Engine output to prop > 2) Prop to (decent-sized) generator > 3) Small motor (~10HP, if I recall) to generator > 4) Small motor to prop > 5) Engine output to generator > > Very smart and fairly simple design. Obviously, it allowed him to use > the small motor as a backup if his main engine failed - and he could > easily charge his batteries while sailing without having an additional > gadget hanging off his stern. He could also generate *very* serious > power by driving the generator directly with the engine. All of this was > easily accessible from a panel in the passageway next to the engine. > > > If all this is true, then maybe the efficiencies of a very large > > diameter prop, and the advantages of having zero drag from that prop > > when under sail, can only be achieved in a small sailboat by using an > > electric motor to drive the prop? > > You'd be losing a lot of whatever efficiency you gain - and very likely, > more than you can possibly gain - in the dual power conversion. > > > 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 __________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Denis ... > > I too am interested in this (using a large diameter prop). > > My understanding is that maximum motoring efficiency in a sailboat can be achieved by attaching a low-ratio gearbox (3:1 or 4:1?) to a conventional (small) sailboat engine and using a very large diameter prop. But of course using a very large diameter prop will usually completely ruin sailing performance. > > I've also read that if, when sailing, you keep the motor running and have the big prop turning at a very slow speed (50 rpm? 100 rpm?), then the prop drag is totally eliminated. But small sailboat diesels don't idle slow enough, and don't like being continuously run at idle speed, so can't be used for this. > > But I understand that if an electric motor (instead of a diesel) was used to drive a very large diameter prop, then this scenario might be possible. Apparently electric motors are quite happy running at very slow speeds for long periods of time, and (most importantly) use very little current when doing so. > > If all this is true, then maybe the efficiencies of a very large diameter prop, and the advantages of having zero drag from that prop when under sail, can only be achieved in a small sailboat by using an electric motor to drive the prop? > > I fear that in my lifetime the price of diesel will rise so high that I won't be able to afford to buy it, so I've been wondering if I should put an electric motor in my Swain 26. In practice it's very unlikely I'll actually do that (too expensive at the moment, batteries are too heavy, etc); but an electric motor installation might let me use a really big prop! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > __________________________________________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25189|25158|2011-01-30 14:40:50|Ben Okopnik|Re: jet drive|On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:02:22AM -0000, Kim wrote: > > Ben: Sounds like your South African friend had a pretty good setup; > but there's no way I could fit that sort of gear in my little > 26-footer. Neither could I afford it! :-) I doubt that that whole pulley/belt train cost him $100. It was very simply made, and mostly home-built; just a bunch of pulleys bolted onto shafts and attached to bulkheads and upright mild steel plates, with home-made steel levers to tension and release them. I don't remember anything but the simplest details of it, but I'm sure that I could "reinvent" that design in an hour or so - and I'm not a mechanical engineer by any means. > However, your suggestion > to use a variable-pitch prop is interesting. Decades ago > variable-pitch props seemed to have a reputation for being tricky and > unreliable. Do you think that's still true? They were certainly > extremely expensive, and seem to be rare on yachts here in Australia. As I understand it, it's a pretty standard thing on Scandinavian fishing boats, along with hydraulic drive - it allows them to install the engine in pretty much any orientation they like, and they don't have to worry about engine-shaft alignment problems. A friend of mine has a vari-pitch prop on his boat, and it _was_ expensive - but he's got a 60-some-foot Cherubini ferro boat, is a bit of a perfectionist about his engine and drive train, has a steady retirement income, and has been building his boat for 30+ years. :) I suspect that he went for top quality and didn't bother about the cost. > Not needing a gearbox with one of these would be a truly huge bonus > (and would more than compensate the higher cost of the prop)! Don't forget the savings in diesel - since you'd be running the engine at a fixed RPM for max efficiency. > I imagine that would enable almost any type of diesel engine (combined > with Brent's skeg-cooling system) to be used? But wouldn't it be > advantageous to have some means of engaging neutral (ie: stopping the > prop shaft spinning without having to turn the engine off)? I don't know enough about it to say yea or nay; off the top, I can't see any reason. Neutral pitch would take care of anything like that, from what I can see. 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| 25190|25158|2011-01-30 14:53:32|Ben Okopnik|Re: Motor - prop - generator - small motor|On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 09:56:53AM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > Ben, > > I few photographs of that would be very interesting to look at. I've tried to transfer the JPG out of my brain, but holding a network cable between my teeth doesn't seem to have any effect, and looking around on WiFi doesn't turn up a station called "Bens_brain" anywhere in the area. Besides, it's so fuzzy and dark that you'd never be able to tell anything... :) As I'd mentioned, it's been a really long time - it was in Georgetown, in the Bahamas, within the first year of me going cruising. I don't recall anything more than a few details. E.g., he had double pulleys and belts set up for the main engine shaft, and the whole thing was a bit haphazardly built; the idler pulley levers were stopped by bolts sticking out of the mounting plate, the levers themselves were nothing more than a piece of flat stock cut to length and pinned to the plate. It was sturdily put together, though, and he'd been using it for quite a few years and a whole lot of miles. 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| 25191|25082|2011-01-30 14:55:12|Paul Wilson|Re: Longetivity of steel boat (Re: Lucas. No Origami content.)|Sorry, but this makes no sense...who puts a steel boat in the water without painting it? Even if you did, the figures quoted are theory only and in the real world are meaningless. It only takes a small hole to sink a boat. A constant drip of salt water will corrode through steel much faster than steel constantly immersed in water due to the high level of oxygen. I believe the minimum 3mm recommendation has to do with distortion and strength, nothing to do with corrosion. Paul On 1/31/2011 8:17 AM, wild_explorer wrote: > > Standard numbers of reducing metal thickness because of rust for steel > ocean boats (without special protection) = 0.2mm/year > > 5 years of usage = 1mm loss in metal thickness. You do the math. If I > remember correctly, minimal recommended steel plate for the hull (for > small ocean boat) is 3mm. > > Lifetime of commercial steel boat is 12-24 years (depends on level of > steel protection). > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "scott" wrote: > > > How many years would a steel boat last if you no longer had access to > epoxy to seal it. > > > > | 25192|25158|2011-01-30 15:00:38|Paul Wilson|Re: jet drive|>>>>>Talking of hybrid propulsion systems for boats, I thought this Yanmar/electric setup was pretty interesting ... http://www.hybrid-marine.co.uk/resources/Yanmar+hybrid+brochure.pdf This a great idea.....I saw a guy at the Miami Boat Show a few years ago who adapted a winding into the bell housing of a Beta(?) Diesel. I can't remember the name of it but it was like having a separate generator on board for only a 1 inch increase in length of the bell housing. I don't know why this isn't done more.... Cheers, Paul| 25193|25158|2011-01-30 15:43:36|Aaron Williams|Re: jet drive|Yanmar, Beta Marine, Mastervolt, and Nani diesel all have just come out with their hybreds and they are proud of their products. Take any of the plain marine motors and add 6 to 10 thousand. Aaron ________________________________ From: Paul Wilson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, January 30, 2011 11:00:39 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive   >>>>>Talking of hybrid propulsion systems for boats, I thought this Yanmar/electric setup was pretty interesting ... http://www.hybrid-marine.co.uk/resources/Yanmar+hybrid+brochure.pdf This a great idea.....I saw a guy at the Miami Boat Show a few years ago who adapted a winding into the bell housing of a Beta(?) Diesel. I can't remember the name of it but it was like having a separate generator on board for only a 1 inch increase in length of the bell housing. I don't know why this isn't done more.... Cheers, Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25194|25158|2011-01-30 16:11:00|jason ball|Re: jet drive|hiya, sabb a norwegian company (as opposed to saab, which is swedish), do them. ive got the "h" series in my boat (8hp at 1500revs). hav'nt got it workin yet tho so i cant really comment on it(was siezed when i bought the boat), altho only 8hp it swings a big variable pitched prop which i have been told, pushes the boat along "sufficiently". you can start em by hand and on the button and are reckoned to be a very reliable engine. heavy old lumps tho and you can't drop the sump and knock the piston straight down out the bottom, they have  an opening at the side and that makes for a tight working space.anyway google the sabb website and you'll get all you need to know .will let you know how it performs around may time...jason ball --- On Sun, 30/1/11, James Pronk wrote: From: James Pronk Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, 30 January, 2011, 19:20   Was it Saab that had a variable-pitch prop with no gearbox and a slow rpm diesel? I think there was one on ebay some time ago. James  --- On Sun, 1/30/11, Kim wrote: From: Kim Subject: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Sunday, January 30, 2011, 6:02 AM   Ben: Sounds like your South African friend had a pretty good setup; but there's no way I could fit that sort of gear in my little 26-footer. Neither could I afford it! :-) However, your suggestion to use a variable-pitch prop is interesting. Decades ago variable-pitch props seemed to have a reputation for being tricky and unreliable. Do you think that's still true? They were certainly extremely expensive, and seem to be rare on yachts here in Australia. Not needing a gearbox with one of these would be a truly huge bonus (and would more than compensate the higher cost of the prop)! I imagine that would enable almost any type of diesel engine (combined with Brent's skeg-cooling system) to be used? But wouldn't it be advantageous to have some means of engaging neutral (ie: stopping the prop shaft spinning without having to turn the engine off)? Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht __________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Tank tests comparing fixed props to spinning props showed that the spinning prop has far more drag than a locked prop, more like the drag of a solid disk, the diameter of the spinning prop. __________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 10:10:53PM -0000, Kim wrote: > > > > My understanding is that maximum motoring efficiency in a sailboat can > > be achieved by attaching a low-ratio gearbox (3:1 or 4:1?) to a > > conventional (small) sailboat engine and using a very large diameter > > prop. But of course using a very large diameter prop will usually > > completely ruin sailing performance. > > A variable-pitch prop, when feathered, should eliminate pretty much all > the drag. Bonus: if you install one, you won't need a transmission. > > > But I understand that if an electric motor (instead of a diesel) was > > used to drive a very large diameter prop, then this scenario might be > > possible. Apparently electric motors are quite happy running at very > > slow speeds for long periods of time, and (most importantly) use very > > little current when doing so. > > I met a South African cruiser, many years ago, who had rigged a few > pulleys and cams in that area so he could couple/decouple a set of > systems, like so: > > 1) Engine output to prop > 2) Prop to (decent-sized) generator > 3) Small motor (~10HP, if I recall) to generator > 4) Small motor to prop > 5) Engine output to generator > > Very smart and fairly simple design. Obviously, it allowed him to use > the small motor as a backup if his main engine failed - and he could > easily charge his batteries while sailing without having an additional > gadget hanging off his stern. He could also generate *very* serious > power by driving the generator directly with the engine. All of this was > easily accessible from a panel in the passageway next to the engine. > > > If all this is true, then maybe the efficiencies of a very large > > diameter prop, and the advantages of having zero drag from that prop > > when under sail, can only be achieved in a small sailboat by using an > > electric motor to drive the prop? > > You'd be losing a lot of whatever efficiency you gain - and very likely, > more than you can possibly gain - in the dual power conversion. > > > 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 __________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Denis ... > > I too am interested in this (using a large diameter prop). > > My understanding is that maximum motoring efficiency in a sailboat can be achieved by attaching a low-ratio gearbox (3:1 or 4:1?) to a conventional (small) sailboat engine and using a very large diameter prop. But of course using a very large diameter prop will usually completely ruin sailing performance. > > I've also read that if, when sailing, you keep the motor running and have the big prop turning at a very slow speed (50 rpm? 100 rpm?), then the prop drag is totally eliminated. But small sailboat diesels don't idle slow enough, and don't like being continuously run at idle speed, so can't be used for this. > > But I understand that if an electric motor (instead of a diesel) was used to drive a very large diameter prop, then this scenario might be possible. Apparently electric motors are quite happy running at very slow speeds for long periods of time, and (most importantly) use very little current when doing so. > > If all this is true, then maybe the efficiencies of a very large diameter prop, and the advantages of having zero drag from that prop when under sail, can only be achieved in a small sailboat by using an electric motor to drive the prop? > > I fear that in my lifetime the price of diesel will rise so high that I won't be able to afford to buy it, so I've been wondering if I should put an electric motor in my Swain 26. In practice it's very unlikely I'll actually do that (too expensive at the moment, batteries are too heavy, etc); but an electric motor installation might let me use a really big prop! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > __________________________________________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25195|25158|2011-01-30 18:03:34|David Frantz|Re: jet drive|Hi Scott; I don't think the weight would be that bad. Remember you effectively replace the drive shaft, transmission and a bit of structure with other material. Since I don't have a boat at the moment I've thought a lot about how I could do something similar. One idea revolves around using the rudder mechanism. Another involves an arraignment sort of like an outboard. Due to the torque curves of Electric motors this should be fairly simple mechanically. That is it could be a single belt drive reduction system. One advantage here is that it keeps the motor out of the water. Fan cooled motors though would likely have problems with water contact so motor selection is an issue. All in all it would be a very serviceable system. Admittedly submersible motors eliminate the cooling issues if designed like a trolling motor. Water around the motor effectively cools it. Finding something off the shelf, that has the horsepower is an issue. I see going DIY here as being more difficult. Maybe you have some ideas, most of submersible motors for sale, that I've seen, aren't optimized for an outboard like installation. Batteries as ballast is interesting but the big problem here is that batteries and water don't mix well at all. Put them extremely low in a boat and you run the risk of a short. Admittedly I've thought the same thing even to the extent of making the keel wider at the top to handle a row of batteries. That would keep them very low and be significant working ballast. In the end the mechanical design of the boat would need looking at to optimize battery placement. Especially if your bank becomes so large that battery placement significantly impacts trim. In other words it isn't a problem to find room for two deep cycle batteries, but a bank of eight really large batteries might require a bit of thought. Of course that assumes the use of lead acid batteries. The problem here is that lead batteries are less than optimal for this use. The flip side is that technology is changing so fast lead is probably the safe bet. In any event I find electric propulsion to be a very interesting concept. Post more if your thoughts or ideas if you could. David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. On Jan 30, 2011, at 6:46 AM, scott wrote: > My personal desire for power for a sail boat would be two electric motors on mounts on the transom that could be raised totally out of the water. Then a generator to run them for long trips and a mid sized battery bank that you could motor off of for a least 3 or 4 hours as well as act as a large house bank. I have always loved using dual prop boats for close in manoeuvrability. Two motors would give you redundancy. Being able to pull them out of the water and having a boat designed with no prop or prop aperture when sailing would give you better performance. The downside is that you have added the weight of two electric motors and mounts that raise and lower to the transom.. I think you could do if though in the 200 lbs range. not to bad especially if the boat was designed that way.. batteries could be built right into a vented and sealed compartment in the keel to act as ballast. > > scott > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: >> >> Nobody is ignoring the drag of a large diameter >> prop, you either feather it or pull it out of the >> water (seems awkward). The small dia prop is a >> holdover from when folding and feathering props >> were not easily available. Small diameter >> fixed-pitch props persist because it is still the >> cheapest to manufacture and install. Depending >> on how much motoring you do, it might be cheapest >> overall to have a small two blade prop and park >> it aligned with the keel/skeg. However, there >> are other options. I'm still years away from >> building my boat, but am beginning to do the >> research involved with a hybrid-electric >> system. Electric motors can be coupled with >> large props more simply than with diesel and the >> advantages gained by a large prop could >> compensate for some of the losses associated when >> generating electricity from a diesel generator >> (when motoring requirements exceed battery >> capacity). Lots of ways to skin this cat. >> >> Darren >> >> At 02:41 PM 29/01/2011, you wrote: >>> >>> >>> Everybody seems to ignore that prop is screw >>> turning in water. The pitch of a big ship prop >>> is huge, thus it doesn’t need to turn as fast >>> for the same speed. Aren’t we talking >>> sailboats? A big prop is more efficient for >>> MOTORING, for sailing it is much less efficient. >>> So a small high speed prop is actually better most of the time. >>> >>> Gary H. Lucas >>> >>> From: BrdbMc@... >>> Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 2:48 PM >>> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >>> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive >>> >>> Hi, >>> The large engines on the ships I sailed on had >>> Doxford or Sulzer engines that ran at 100rpm >>> From Bundy Queensland to London took between 38 >>> and 42 days and used 1000tons of heavy oil fuel >>> When I left the Merchant Navy small coastal >>> cargo ship were being built with engines that ran at a constant speed >>> but had a varable pitch propeller.I believe that >>> bigger ships are now fitted with power pods with this abilty. >>> The canal boat I live on as a diesil engine from >>> a BMC taxi fitted with a marinising kit.It is a >>> comprimise as a slower engine would be more >>> efficent,but the downside is they take up more room and wiegh twice as much. >>> >>> Mikeafloat >>> >>> [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] >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 25196|25082|2011-01-30 18:06:35|wild_explorer|Longetivity of steel boat (Re: Lucas. No Origami content.)|I am taking this information (simple Internet search) from boat building standards readily available online. When I have question, I prefer to use standards, not some websites with questionable information. And standard use REAL world (proven by time) data, not theoretical numbers. So, 0.2mm/year allowance for corrosion DOES make sense. As I suspect (this is my speculation), standard assumes that steel for big ships is protected only by regular primer and paint (probably cheapest one for such application). No special coating. I could not find where I got 3mm minimum for steel hull thickness, but it was a table for many materials included wood. More likely related to strength of material for boats with different LOA. Corrosion need to be taken into account. So, if you have 5mm hull and allowable thickness 3mm, you have 2mm allowance for corrosion without extra effort. Simple as that. P.S. Now I understand why Brent does not provide extra information for building steel boat. First - it is available everywhere. Second - people will build a boat to their own standards anyway. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Sorry, but this makes no sense...who puts a steel boat in the water > without painting it? Even if you did, the figures quoted are theory only > and in the real world are meaningless. It only takes a small hole to > sink a boat. A constant drip of salt water will corrode through steel > much faster than steel constantly immersed in water due to the high > level of oxygen. I believe the minimum 3mm recommendation has to do with > distortion and strength, nothing to do with corrosion. > > Paul > > On 1/31/2011 8:17 AM, wild_explorer wrote: > > > > Standard numbers of reducing metal thickness because of rust for steel > > ocean boats (without special protection) = 0.2mm/year > > > > 5 years of usage = 1mm loss in metal thickness. You do the math. If I > > remember correctly, minimal recommended steel plate for the hull (for > > small ocean boat) is 3mm. > > > > Lifetime of commercial steel boat is 12-24 years (depends on level of > > steel protection). | 25197|25158|2011-01-30 18:17:14|BrdbMc@aol.com|Re: jet drive|Hi, Narrow boats have tried and still trying different drive systems. I know of several that have bought old forklifts, fitted the motor plus pump and used hydraulics to drive the prop. Others with money have gone the way of this boat http://www.harnser.info/html/building_harnser.html The advantage is the engine can be toked away most being fitted forward so noise is less of a problem. Can run 12 volt or greater alternators. The downside is if a pipe brakes cleaning up the lost oil can be a pain. As to different fuels we have one boat running on old chip frying oil.No smoke but still smells like a fish and chip shop and I always feel hungry as it passes. Mikeafloat -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson To: origamiboats Sent: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:00 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive >>>>>Talking of hybrid propulsion systems for boats, I thought this anmar/electric setup was pretty interesting ... http://www.hybrid-marine.co.uk/resources/Yanmar+hybrid+brochure.pdf This a great idea.....I saw a guy at the Miami Boat Show a few years ago ho adapted a winding into the bell housing of a Beta(?) Diesel. I an't remember the name of it but it was like having a separate enerator on board for only a 1 inch increase in length of the bell housing. I don't know why this isn't done more.... Cheers, Paul ----------------------------------- 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]| 25198|25198|2011-01-30 18:17:14|BrdbMc@aol.com|Different drives|Hi, Narrow boats have tried and still trying different drive systems. I know of several that have bought old forklifts, fitted the motor plus pump and used hydraulics to drive the prop. Others with money have gone the way of this boat http://www.harnser.info/html/building_harnser.html The advantage is the engine can be tucked away most being fitted forward so noise is less of a problem. Can run 12 volt or greater alternators. The downside is if a pipe brakes cleaning up the lost oil can be a pain. As to different fuels we have one boat running on old chip frying oil.No smoke but still smells like a fish and chip shop and I always feel hungry as it passes. Mikeafloat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25199|25158|2011-01-30 18:25:06|David Frantz|Re: jet drive|Nice if you have money to throw around. I would be extremely interested in independent testing. I'm not convinced that straight hybrids are all that much more efficient than driving a prop through a gear box. It might depend upon your usage style, but if you run at hull speed most of the time is there a win for a plain hybrid. If I ever get to the point where I have to make decisions about propulsion and wanted some sort of electric solution, I think I would look at a system that allows for running off batteries or alternative power sources. In other words flexibility would be one reason to go with a electric drive. David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. On Jan 30, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Aaron Williams wrote: > Yanmar, Beta Marine, Mastervolt, and Nani diesel all have just come out with > their hybreds and they are proud of their products. > Take any of the plain marine motors and add 6 to 10 thousand. > Aaron > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Paul Wilson > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sun, January 30, 2011 11:00:39 AM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive > > >>>>>> Talking of hybrid propulsion systems for boats, I thought this > Yanmar/electric setup was pretty interesting ... > > http://www.hybrid-marine.co.uk/resources/Yanmar+hybrid+brochure.pdf > > This a great idea.....I saw a guy at the Miami Boat Show a few years ago > who adapted a winding into the bell housing of a Beta(?) Diesel. I > can't remember the name of it but it was like having a separate > generator on board for only a 1 inch increase in length of the bell housing. > > I don't know why this isn't done more.... > > Cheers, Paul > > > > > > > [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 > > > | 25200|25158|2011-01-30 18:25:46|wild_explorer|Electrical powertrain ( Re: jet drive)|Acid batteries would not be a problem if you can find "submarine type" - very tall and narrow with replaceable plates. This will allow to put batteries in keel in sealed compartment with proper vents to atmosphere. Usually Sailboat hills no more than 30deg and such batteries will work fine. New battery types (AGM, NiCD, NiMH, LiON, etc) usually last 2-3 years only. Plus have limited charge-discharge cycles limit. You may try to get batteries from wrecked Toyota Prius, but I suspect it would be too expensive. Electrical motor choice is a problem as well. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz > > > Of course that assumes the use of lead acid batteries. The problem here is that lead batteries are less than optimal for this use. The flip side is that technology is changing so fast lead is probably the safe bet. > > In any event I find electric propulsion to be a very interesting concept. Post more if your thoughts or ideas if you could. > > David A Frantz > websterindustro4at4mac.com | 25201|25158|2011-01-30 18:38:14|wild_explorer|Re: jet drive|Loses in Hybrid systems ~15-20%. In big ships, every percent counts, that why power train there is simple - uses direct shaft attached directly to the engine with low RPMs. Where flexibility is more important, hybrid systems are OK. For sailboat - simpler is better. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > Nice if you have money to throw around. > > I would be extremely interested in independent testing. I'm not convinced that straight hybrids are all that much more efficient than driving a prop through a gear box. It might depend upon your usage style, but if you run at hull speed most of the time is there a win for a plain hybrid. > > If I ever get to the point where I have to make decisions about propulsion and wanted some sort of electric solution, I think I would look at a system that allows for running off batteries or alternative power sources. In other words flexibility would be one reason to go with a electric drive. > > David A Frantz | 25202|25158|2011-01-30 19:14:08|RICHARD|Re: jet drive|"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > Don't forget the savings in diesel - since you'd be running the engine > at a fixed RPM for max efficiency. > > > > 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 > | 25203|25082|2011-01-30 19:14:53|Ben Okopnik|Re: Longetivity of steel boat (Re: Lucas. No Origami content.)|On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:06:26PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > I am taking this information (simple Internet search) from boat > building standards readily available online. When I have question, I > prefer to use standards, not some websites with questionable > information. And standard use REAL world (proven by time) data, not > theoretical numbers. So, 0.2mm/year allowance for corrosion DOES make > sense. Those "real world data" fail to take into account a very important factor. I've been dealing with steel around salt water for quite a few years now, and I can give you a couple of general rules of thumb from my experience: 1) Bare steel that gets wet and dry regularly: I've seen new 11-gauge steel rust through in less than two years. *PAINT YOUR BILGES*, folks, and paint'em heavy! There's no place on the boat that's nearly as important to protect; boats pretty much always rust through from the inside! Chipped decks also turn into a bad problem unless you take care of them ASAP. Small chips tend to rust to a certain depth and then stop, but larger areas "dish out" with a hole appearing in the center first. 2) Bare steel that stays dry: very slow, can't even be 0.2mm/year. I've got unpainted surfaces on the underside of the sole that are original from the builder - i.e., been there since 1979 - and other than a having a "dusty" and very slightly rough surface (about like 400 grit sandpaper), there's no sign of deterioration. No rust flakes, etc. 3) Bare steel that stays wet (i.e., chips in the hull paint below the waterline): surpisingly slow, but definitely more than 0.2mm/year - maybe 1mm or a little more (estimated.) And yes, I realize that rust has a much larger volume than the steel that got turned into it; those oxy molecules are pretty sizeable, and the 'x' in 'FeOx' can vary from 3 to 5 (I think 3 is the most common.) Upshot: you can't "average" a "rusting rate" like that; Paul was absolutely right when he said that it only takes a small hole to sink a boat. It's like deciding that someone is "healthy on the average" when their leg has been chopped off but they're perfectly fine otherwise. :) If most of your boat is "averaging" 0.2mm/year but a spot in your bilges is down to foil, you're goin' down. ([sigh] I'm really bad about painting in a timely manner; that's why I know all this. Rats. I wish I had as easy of a time doing it as some folks seem to; for me, it's a huge chore, probably the most difficult thing I do on the boat on a regular basis. Needless to say, I'm usually behind on 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| 25204|25158|2011-01-30 19:25:28|Ben Okopnik|Re: jet drive|On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:14:07AM -0000, RICHARD wrote: > "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" I didn't realize we had J. Wellington Wimpy with us. Welcome! :) 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| 25205|25082|2011-01-30 20:10:49|wild_explorer|Longetivity of steel boat (Re: Lucas. No Origami content.)|Yep, standard does not take into account wrong surface preparation, not following manufacturer's recommendations for paint application, lack of maintenance and neglect. It provides information as a START point, assuming regular industry practice. Ben, you gave very useful practical information. Brent gave lot of information about protecting steel boat, following it you will have worry-free boat for a long time. P.S. I would not "fight or squeeze myself into a bottle" over it. The same boat could be rusted trough in couple of years in one hands and last lifetime in others. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:06:26PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > I am taking this information (simple Internet search) from boat > > building standards readily available online. When I have question, I > > prefer to use standards, not some websites with questionable > > information. And standard use REAL world (proven by time) data, not > > theoretical numbers. So, 0.2mm/year allowance for corrosion DOES make > > sense. > > Those "real world data" fail to take into account a very important > factor. I've been dealing with steel around salt water for quite a few > years now, and I can give you a couple of general rules of thumb from my > experience: > | 25206|25198|2011-01-30 20:59:49|wild_explorer|Re: Different drives|Just an information http://www.altendorff.co.uk/archives/459 --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, BrdbMc@... wrote: > > As to different fuels we have one boat running on old chip frying oil.No smoke but still smells like a fish and chip shop and I always feel hungry as it passes. > > Mikeafloat | 25207|25198|2011-01-30 21:27:16|wild_explorer|Re: Different drives|Another "Internet find" ;) The View Forward So what's next for HTS and how soon will it be widely deployed? HTS wire has been extensively tested in Navy and commercial laboratories, and its durability has been proven. HTS motors rated up to 5000 horsepower at 1800 rpm have been built and tested successfully to a continuous rating of 5,900 horsepower. A 230-rpm 5 MW ship propulsion prototype motor, funded by the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research, is now being built at American Superconductor Corporation, and will be rigorously evaluated by the U.S. Navy in the last half of 2003. A 100 MVA HTS commercial generator, funded in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, is under development at General Electric. From this high-level view, it appears that HTS-based propulsion systems are the next generational improvement in marine propulsion systems. Naval architects can now begin to translate these propulsion system improvements into increased profitability for ship owners and operators. Source: http://www.amsc.com/products/library/Maritime_Reporter_final3_sk1_73002_final.pdf --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Just an information http://www.altendorff.co.uk/archives/459 > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, BrdbMc@ wrote: > > > > > As to different fuels we have one boat running on old chip frying oil.No smoke but still smells like a fish and chip shop and I always feel hungry as it passes. > > > > Mikeafloat > | 25208|25158|2011-01-30 23:13:03|Jimbo|Re: jet drive|Mike!   Mate, you are a hoot!  There has been far too much seriousness on this forum lately and you brought it back down to earth with a decent thud of fantastic humour and excellent common sense.  Well done!   Cheers, Jim. --- On Sun, 30/1/11, BrdbMc@... wrote: From: BrdbMc@... Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Sunday, 30 January, 2011, 4:27 PM   Hi, Narrow boats have tried and still trying different drive systems. I know of several that have bought old forklifts, fitted the motor plus pump and used hydraulics to drive the prop. Others with money have gone the way of this boat http://www.harnser.info/html/building_harnser.html The advantage is the engine can be toked away most being fitted forward so noise is less of a problem. Can run 12 volt or greater alternators. The downside is if a pipe brakes cleaning up the lost oil can be a pain. As to different fuels we have one boat running on old chip frying oil.No smoke but still smells like a fish and chip shop and I always feel hungry as it passes. Mikeafloat -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson To: origamiboats Sent: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:00 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive >>>>>Talking of hybrid propulsion systems for boats, I thought this anmar/electric setup was pretty interesting ... http://www.hybrid-marine.co.uk/resources/Yanmar+hybrid+brochure.pdf This a great idea.....I saw a guy at the Miami Boat Show a few years ago ho adapted a winding into the bell housing of a Beta(?) Diesel. I an't remember the name of it but it was like having a separate enerator on board for only a 1 inch increase in length of the bell housing. I don't know why this isn't done more.... Cheers, Paul ----------------------------------- 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] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25209|25158|2011-01-31 00:09:00|Jimbo|TOO MUCH BS, ex jet drive|My fellow sailing mates!!!!   As an updated introduction, we now have a 40' boat that weighs 6 t fully loaded, with a 23' beam.   What do we need need in order to push along at 6 knots at 3/4 throttle?  Twin Yamaha 8 HP outboards in wells on either side of the cockpit!    What max speed do we do and what can we average if we dump our 4 anchors and 6 months worth of food and then switch off (and tilt up) our outboards?  I am not going to tell you.  What can we manage when we continue, as we will, with all this stuff?  Oooohh!    What if we dump half of this stuff, switch to a a different sail configuration, bigger engine, smaller bilge pump, bigger toilet?    Too much talking on this site.  You do not want to know my real numbers.   If you are interested, do the maths!  Better still, shut up and get out here!   And the crazy thing is.... we are still not there yet..... at the final destination of our ideal boat.....we already know the ideal boat does not exist and so we are are merely in a a transittion stage while we drink a rum, catch a few lobsters and mull over the final compromised design .    The final stage when, as a good engineer / sailor / efficient alcoholic / good bloke / lobster taster etc, I come to a convenient conclusion, will be loosely based on an alloy cat built on the origami system.  All the other bullshit some of you speak is just splitting hairs.   Who really cares where your sink waste goes?  Use steel or aluminium for a mono?   Just fucken flip a coin and go sailing.  Stop mucking around like old gossipy women.    GET OUT THERE AND GOOOOOO!!!!!!   RIGHT NOW we are hanging on the hook, after an excellent day of of conch, rum and REAL cruiser talk.  What are YOU doing ???  Getting ready for another e-battle with Ben about maths and philosophy?   Hah!   Get a life!  Get a boat!   Cheers, Jim.   PS.. Before you mention it, our previous boats were steel monos.  Were excellent!!!  But we have moved on......    As many of you should also do in your own way..........so stop talking, start doing!   Build a BS, buy a used something, whatever. and stop with the incessant little BS details!!!   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25210|25210|2011-01-31 04:51:40|Kim|Variable-pitch prop and no gearbox. [Was Re: jet drive]|Many thanks for the info, Ben! Actually, your raising of the variable-pitch prop idea has made me completely rethink the power options for my 26-footer. I think that an engine that provided about 8 HP _continuous at the shaft_ would push it through most conditions (its designed displacement is only 3 tons), and indeed for weight reasons I wouldn't want to put in anything much bigger than that. But I very definitely wasn't looking forward to paying out outrageously big bucks for a "marine" diesel, and I certainly wasn't keen on trying to find and fit a gearbox to some small industrial diesel engine (assuming such a conversion could even be done). But with a variable-pitch prop, maybe a gearbox really isn't necessary at all! If so, then I could use almost any cheap, small, fresh-water cooled industrial diesel engine, drop it on the engine beds, hook it up to the drive shaft (with the variable-pitch prop at the other end), and away I go. So if I could pick up (say) a small fresh-water cooled 12 HP @ 3000 rpm industrial engine that produced (say) 8 HP @ 1500 RPM (which might be a suitable prop shaft speed) (and which might also be its optimal revs), then that would be ideal. For example: this page lists over a thousand Chinese-made fresh-water cooled single-cylinder diesel engines - http://tinyurl.com/small-engine - many of which I bet would be ideal for the job, would probably be reliable enough, and no doubt would be as cheap as chips. Despite the extra cost of the variable-pitch prop, such an installation would probably be much cheaper overall, and without the gearbox it would probably be much lighter too. As you have pointed out, the engine itself, running constantly at its optimum RPM, would have better reliability and better fuel consumption. And of course the variable-pitch prop itself provides numerous advantages (such as optimum pitch to suit sea conditions, very little drag when sailing, etc). As James and Jason mentioned in their recent replies, Sabb did this with their former production marine engine, and as I recall they had an excellent reputation. The Sabb couldn't have suffered any from not being able to engage neutral via a gearbox, so your suggestion that just adjusting the prop blades to neutral pitch must have worked OK. The more I think about it, the more this sounds like a really good idea! Many advantages, and indeed I can't think of any disadvantages! So the question is: if this is likely to work (which I think it might), then why don't more boat owners do it? Why isn't it more popular? Although I'm talking about very low power requirements here for a 3 ton 26-footer, I assume the concept could be scaled up for larger vessels. Am I missing something really obvious that would make the whole scheme impractical? Would greatly appreciate anyone's input on this. Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:02:22AM -0000, Kim wrote: > > > > Ben: Sounds like your South African friend had a pretty good setup; > > but there's no way I could fit that sort of gear in my little > > 26-footer. Neither could I afford it! :-) > > I doubt that that whole pulley/belt train cost him $100. It was very > simply made, and mostly home-built; just a bunch of pulleys bolted onto > shafts and attached to bulkheads and upright mild steel plates, with > home-made steel levers to tension and release them. I don't remember > anything but the simplest details of it, but I'm sure that I could > "reinvent" that design in an hour or so - and I'm not a mechanical > engineer by any means. > > > However, your suggestion > > to use a variable-pitch prop is interesting. Decades ago > > variable-pitch props seemed to have a reputation for being tricky and > > unreliable. Do you think that's still true? They were certainly > > extremely expensive, and seem to be rare on yachts here in Australia. > > As I understand it, it's a pretty standard thing on Scandinavian fishing > boats, along with hydraulic drive - it allows them to install the engine > in pretty much any orientation they like, and they don't have to worry > about engine-shaft alignment problems. A friend of mine has a vari-pitch > prop on his boat, and it _was_ expensive - but he's got a 60-some-foot > Cherubini ferro boat, is a bit of a perfectionist about his engine and > drive train, has a steady retirement income, and has been building his > boat for 30+ years. :) I suspect that he went for top quality and didn't > bother about the cost. > > > Not needing a gearbox with one of these would be a truly huge bonus > > (and would more than compensate the higher cost of the prop)! > > Don't forget the savings in diesel - since you'd be running the engine > at a fixed RPM for max efficiency. > > > I imagine that would enable almost any type of diesel engine (combined > > with Brent's skeg-cooling system) to be used? But wouldn't it be > > advantageous to have some means of engaging neutral (ie: stopping the > > prop shaft spinning without having to turn the engine off)? > > I don't know enough about it to say yea or nay; off the top, I can't see > any reason. Neutral pitch would take care of anything like that, from > what I can see. > > > 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 ______________________________________________________________ | 25211|25158|2011-01-31 08:44:38|scott|Re: jet drive|I have been a member there for many years. So I will go with I am enlightened. It is doable now and not for a large fortune. Not to say it won't cost. For this setup you would pay in excess of 10 grand I would estimate. Depends on how much you can fabricate yourself vs off the shelf components. The BS 26 and 31 are ideal sizes for electric conversion ... bigger than that and you have to up the size of the equipment substantially as well as the power requirements. My intent with my post wasn't to spec a system and talk details though. Just to mention a concept that I would love to use. for details I would also advise people to drop in on the electricboat group on yahoo. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > Scot > Its is a great idea but go over to the electric boat group and get enlightened > about what it takes to do what you are asking. It can be done if you have enough > money. Building in space for batteries in the keel is great but lead acid need > maintanence AGM have there issues as was as the new types of Lithium. It does > take a bit more power than you may think. > > Aaron > | 25212|25158|2011-01-31 08:57:16|scott|Re: jet drive|the newest generation of the off the shelf torqeedo motors would probably be great for this in boats under 30 ft if you use two of them. I think the say they replace about a 9 hp motor.. so you would have about 18hp in a two motor system. From what I have seen they are the most efficient. Re-epower had some really nice technology in development for underwater pod motors but they seem to have had some issues with cash flow that ended up with a lot of customers extremely unhappy with support and warranty issues as well as undelivered units after they were paid from.. (take this with a grain of salt as I am only repeating what I have heard people talk about on some of the electric boat forums.) I looked into buying one at one time but didn't have the money then.. I am glad I didn't get one now because of this. Their products though if everything had worked out would have supported up to 40 + ft displacement boat. My idea had been a beam on the transom with another beam with the motor at the base on a faired section that could be lowered into the water with adjustable depth. the other idea was simply the motor mounted on the end of a strut that in the up position had the motor at about transom level and it just rotated out and down on a simple but sturdy hinge and locked into place at the bottom of the transom with the motor extending a couple feet into the water. In the up position it would be accessible to do maintenance on the motor and prop at transom level. For a smaller boat probably a 48 volt system.. for bigger boats you would probably want to go to 120 or 220.. though the installation is much more critical for safe electrical wiring at those voltages due to the inherent danger of high voltage. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > Hi Scott; > > I don't think the weight would be that bad. Remember you effectively replace the drive shaft, transmission and a bit of structure with other material. > > Since I don't have a boat at the moment I've thought a lot about how I could do something similar. One idea revolves around using the rudder mechanism. > > Another involves an arraignment sort of like an outboard. Due to the torque curves of Electric motors this should be fairly simple mechanically. That is it could be a single belt drive reduction system. One advantage here is that it keeps the motor out of the water. Fan cooled motors though would likely have problems with water contact so motor selection is an issue. All in all it would be a very serviceable system. > > Admittedly submersible motors eliminate the cooling issues if designed like a trolling motor. Water around the motor effectively cools it. Finding something off the shelf, that has the horsepower is an issue. I see going DIY here as being more difficult. Maybe you have some ideas, most of submersible motors for sale, that I've seen, aren't optimized for an outboard like installation. > > Batteries as ballast is interesting but the big problem here is that batteries and water don't mix well at all. Put them extremely low in a boat and you run the risk of a short. Admittedly I've thought the same thing even to the extent of making the keel wider at the top to handle a row of batteries. That would keep them very low and be significant working ballast. > > In the end the mechanical design of the boat would need looking at to optimize battery placement. Especially if your bank becomes so large that battery placement significantly impacts trim. In other words it isn't a problem to find room for two deep cycle batteries, but a bank of eight really large batteries might require a bit of thought. > > Of course that assumes the use of lead acid batteries. The problem here is that lead batteries are less than optimal for this use. The flip side is that technology is changing so fast lead is probably the safe bet. > > In any event I find electric propulsion to be a very interesting concept. Post more if your thoughts or ideas if you could. > > David A Frantz > websterindustro4at4mac.com | 25213|25158|2011-01-31 09:06:19|scott|Re: jet drive|I think the flexibility is a big plus.. regardless of efficiency.. The though that I have 100% thrust on my motor without having to crank the engine or that I can go 100% forward or reverse almost instantly without having to shift a transmission and idle the diesel down and the back up as I do so, is to me a major plus. Also getting 100% of your torque over your entire rpm range is a nice benefit. my understanding on efficiency though is that with brand new current generation diesels with all the computer controls and high efficiency technology is that no.. you don't gain any efficiency by the time you lose power in the conversion to electrical and back to mechanical at the other end. however with older diesels you can get very good efficiency over all due to being able to run them at their most efficient load and RPM all the time. for some interesting stats re your desire for independent testing, you need to look up Nigel Calders recent articles over the last year or so in boatbuilder? magazine and a few other places. He has been specificly testing efficiencies and performance for hybrid systems. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > Nice if you have money to throw around. > > I would be extremely interested in independent testing. I'm not convinced that straight hybrids are all that much more efficient than driving a prop through a gear box. It might depend upon your usage style, but if you run at hull speed most of the time is there a win for a plain hybrid. > > If I ever get to the point where I have to make decisions about propulsion and wanted some sort of electric solution, I think I would look at a system that allows for running off batteries or alternative power sources. In other words flexibility would be one reason to go with a electric drive. > > David A Frantz > websterindustro4at4mac.com > > Sent from my iPhone. > > On Jan 30, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Aaron Williams wrote: > > > Yanmar, Beta Marine, Mastervolt, and Nani diesel all have just come out with > > their hybreds and they are proud of their products. > > Take any of the plain marine motors and add 6 to 10 thousand. > > Aaron > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Paul Wilson > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sun, January 30, 2011 11:00:39 AM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive > > > > > >>>>>> Talking of hybrid propulsion systems for boats, I thought this > > Yanmar/electric setup was pretty interesting ... > > > > http://www.hybrid-marine.co.uk/resources/Yanmar+hybrid+brochure.pdf > > > > This a great idea.....I saw a guy at the Miami Boat Show a few years ago > > who adapted a winding into the bell housing of a Beta(?) Diesel. I > > can't remember the name of it but it was like having a separate > > generator on board for only a 1 inch increase in length of the bell housing. > > > > I don't know why this isn't done more.... > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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 > > > > > > > | 25214|25210|2011-01-31 11:06:16|Darren Bos|Re: Variable-pitch prop and no gearbox. [Was Re: jet drive]|Kim, Reverse is certainly possible on a controllable pitch propeller, you just rotate to negative pitch. However, it seems to me that some kind of transmission (or at least gearing) should still be necessary to decrease prop shaft rpm, otherwise you would be forced to use an undesirably small prop in order not to overload the engine. Below is an example of the SAAB system and a link to a nice article with links to the major manufacturers. http://www.frydenbosabb.no/index.php?mapping=16 http://www.kastenmarine.com/CPprops.htm Darren At 01:51 AM 31/01/2011, you wrote: > > > >Many thanks for the info, Ben! > >Actually, your raising of the variable-pitch >prop idea has made me completely rethink the >power options for my 26-footer. I think that an >engine that provided about 8 HP _continuous at >the shaft_ would push it through most conditions >(its designed displacement is only 3 tons), and >indeed for weight reasons I wouldn't want to put >in anything much bigger than that. But I very >definitely wasn't looking forward to paying out >outrageously big bucks for a "marine" diesel, >and I certainly wasn't keen on trying to find >and fit a gearbox to some small industrial >diesel engine (assuming such a conversion could even be done). > >But with a variable-pitch prop, maybe a gearbox >really isn't necessary at all! If so, then I >could use almost any cheap, small, fresh-water >cooled industrial diesel engine, drop it on the >engine beds, hook it up to the drive shaft (with >the variable-pitch prop at the other end), and away I go. > >So if I could pick up (say) a small fresh-water >cooled 12 HP @ 3000 rpm industrial engine that >produced (say) 8 HP @ 1500 RPM (which might be a >suitable prop shaft speed) (and which might also >be its optimal revs), then that would be ideal. >For example: this page lists over a thousand >Chinese-made fresh-water cooled single-cylinder >diesel engines - >http://tinyurl.com/small-engine >- many of which I bet would be ideal for the >job, would probably be reliable enough, and no >doubt would be as cheap as chips. > >Despite the extra cost of the variable-pitch >prop, such an installation would probably be >much cheaper overall, and without the gearbox it >would probably be much lighter too. As you have >pointed out, the engine itself, running >constantly at its optimum RPM, would have better >reliability and better fuel consumption. And of >course the variable-pitch prop itself provides >numerous advantages (such as optimum pitch to >suit sea conditions, very little drag when sailing, etc). > >As James and Jason mentioned in their recent >replies, Sabb did this with their former >production marine engine, and as I recall they >had an excellent reputation. The Sabb couldn't >have suffered any from not being able to engage >neutral via a gearbox, so your suggestion that >just adjusting the prop blades to neutral pitch must have worked OK. > >The more I think about it, the more this sounds >like a really good idea! Many advantages, and >indeed I can't think of any disadvantages! > >So the question is: if this is likely to work >(which I think it might), then why don't more >boat owners do it? Why isn't it more popular? >Although I'm talking about very low power >requirements here for a 3 ton 26-footer, I >assume the concept could be scaled up for larger >vessels. Am I missing something really obvious >that would make the whole scheme impractical? > >Would greatly appreciate anyone's input on this. > >Cheers ... > >Kim. > >My Swain 26 construction photos: >http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht >__________________________________________________________ > >--- In >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, >Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:02:22AM -0000, Kim wrote: > > > > > > Ben: Sounds like your South African friend had a pretty good setup; > > > but there's no way I could fit that sort of gear in my little > > > 26-footer. Neither could I afford it! :-) > > > > I doubt that that whole pulley/belt train cost him $100. It was very > > simply made, and mostly home-built; just a bunch of pulleys bolted onto > > shafts and attached to bulkheads and upright mild steel plates, with > > home-made steel levers to tension and release them. I don't remember > > anything but the simplest details of it, but I'm sure that I could > > "reinvent" that design in an hour or so - and I'm not a mechanical > > engineer by any means. > > > > > However, your suggestion > > > to use a variable-pitch prop is interesting. Decades ago > > > variable-pitch props seemed to have a reputation for being tricky and > > > unreliable. Do you think that's still true? They were certainly > > > extremely expensive, and seem to be rare on yachts here in Australia. > > > > As I understand it, it's a pretty standard thing on Scandinavian fishing > > boats, along with hydraulic drive - it allows them to install the engine > > in pretty much any orientation they like, and they don't have to worry > > about engine-shaft alignment problems. A friend of mine has a vari-pitch > > prop on his boat, and it _was_ expensive - but he's got a 60-some-foot > > Cherubini ferro boat, is a bit of a perfectionist about his engine and > > drive train, has a steady retirement income, and has been building his > > boat for 30+ years. :) I suspect that he went for top quality and didn't > > bother about the cost. > > > > > Not needing a gearbox with one of these would be a truly huge bonus > > > (and would more than compensate the higher cost of the prop)! > > > > Don't forget the savings in diesel - since you'd be running the engine > > at a fixed RPM for max efficiency. > > > > > I imagine that would enable almost any type of diesel engine (combined > > > with Brent's skeg-cooling system) to be used? But wouldn't it be > > > advantageous to have some means of engaging neutral (ie: stopping the > > > prop shaft spinning without having to turn the engine off)? > > > > I don't know enough about it to say yea or nay; off the top, I can't see > > any reason. Neutral pitch would take care of anything like that, from > > what I can see. > > > > > > 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]| 25215|25158|2011-01-31 11:34:49|SHANE ROTHWELL|TOO MUCH BS, ex jet drive|Hey Jim,   Amen!   And now, just like the man suggested, can we cut the crap and get back to Boats?   Or are we doomed to the bozo seppo who thinks he's a fucking oracle?   Shane     TOO MUCH BS,  ex jet drive Posted by: "Jimbo" jim_cl@...   jim_cl Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:09 pm (PST) My fellow sailing mates!!!!   As an updated introduction , we now have a 40' boat that weighs 6 t fully loaded, with a 23' beam.   What do we need need in order to push along at 6 knots at 3/4 throttle?  Twin Yamaha 8 HP outboards in wells on either side of the cockpit!    What max speed do we do and what can we average if we dump our 4 anchors and 6 months worth of food and then switch off (and tilt up) our outboards?  I am not going to tell you.  What can we manage when we continue, as we will, with all this stuff?  Oooohh!    What if we dump half of this stuff, switch to a a different sail configuration, bigger engine, smaller bilge pump, bigger toilet?    Too much talking on this site.  You do not want to know my real numbers.   If you are interested, do the maths!  Better still, shut up and get out here!   And the crazy thing is.... we are still not there yet..... at the final destination of our ideal boat.....we already know the ideal boat does not exist and so we are are merely in a a transittion stage while we drink a rum, catch a few lobsters and mull over the final compromised design .    The final stage when, as a good engineer / sailor / efficient alcoholic / good bloke / lobster taster etc, I come to a convenient conclusion, will be loosely based on an alloy cat built on the origami system.  All the other bullshit some of you speak is just splitting hairs.   Who really cares where your sink waste goes?  Use steel or aluminium for a mono?   Just fucken flip a coin and go sailing.  Stop mucking around like old gossipy women.    GET OUT THERE AND GOOOOOO!!!!! !   RIGHT NOW we are hanging on the hook, after an excellent day of of conch, rum and REAL cruiser talk.  What are YOU doing ???  Getting ready for another e-battle with Ben about maths and philosophy?   Hah!   Get a life!  Get a boat!   Cheers, Jim.   PS.. Before you mention it, our previous boats were steel monos.  Were excellent!!!   But we have moved on......    As many of you should also do in your own way......... .so stop talking, start doing!   Build a BS, buy a used something, whatever. and stop with the incessant little BS details!!!| 25216|25082|2011-01-31 13:05:28|wild_explorer|Longetivity of steel boat (Re: Lucas. No Origami content.)|Some requirements for steel boats. If you use this one, most standards will be exceeded. I think Brent's recommendations might exceed many standards as well. 1 GENERAL 1.1 Steel boats can be built in accordance with the paragraphs in this chapter on condition that: A. The speed of the boat must not be greater than 15 knots; B. Bulkheads, frames, floors and other structural elements shall be accessible for control and thickness measurement shall be possible to carry out in respect of the bottom, sides and deck of the hull. 1.2 If the above conditions are not fulfilled, the boat shall be built in accordance with chapter C21, C23 and C27. 2 MATERIALS 2.1 During the construction it shall be documented that materials used are of ship quality with certificates issued by a classification society or a Maritime Administration and with at least the following properties: Minimum yield stress 240 N/mm2 Tensile strength 410 N/mm2 Ultimate strain 22 %| 25217|25158|2011-01-31 14:06:28|Denis Buggy|Re: jet drive|THANKS ALL and Darren for your helpful replies. there are boats which overcome some of what we have discussed --- when I was in Bangkok I was ferried around by long and fast riverboats which carry the bulk of all haulage in that part of Thailand their simple solution is to get a van/pickup diesel engine and rad--gearbox and prop shaft and transplant all including the engine mountings from the truck and put the whole show on a balanced long frame about 12ft long which pivoted/balanced behind the engine --- therefore a single hand could lift the prop out of the water by pressing down on a steering handle at the front of the engine --the clutch was lever operated and a gear to suit the prop speed was then chosen . loud and not pretty but it worked and the whole contraption could swing almost 360 degrees and you could;d position the prop on either side of the boat facing forward or back . if the engine blew it was a couple of hours work to transplant another with pulley blocks from an overhanging tree or bridge . I often wondered why nobody has done anything similar -- how about an entire engine room which is bolted together like a Sherman tank --however the engine room /box lifts 3 ft when sailing . loads of things go up and down --rv coaches have hydraulic levelling -- teleporters have hydraulic levelling --it is no big deal-- truck mounted truck cranes have legs . this is a problem area for boats -- no proper access to carry out maintaince --prop exposed to shallows --dragging when sailing -- and while I mention this --you cannot tow a commercial vehicle without withdrawing a half shaft because the bearing at the rear of the gearbox is not getting a supply of oil while towing you should check the lubrication arrangements on your marine boxes. ----- Original Message ----- From: Darren Bos To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 9:17 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive Dave Gerr's prop book is a great source of info for this stuff. The basic ideas are that large props are more efficient than small, but you are usually limited by clearance and drag for a sailboat 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] | 25218|25158|2011-01-31 15:20:19|BrdbMc@aol.com|Re: jet drive|Hi, The Thia name for these boats is long tails,A trip on the river Kwai in one powered by a V8 is fun. I was surprised to see a similar idea on a car ferry,2 large diesel engines but one port and starboard mounted amidships but still just pivoted in to water on a balance bar On Ko Lanta the local boat builders were in to looking for new ways to build their boats and I saw hulls made of concrete,fibreglass and steel but I must confess the traditional wooden hulls looked far better. It was while in Krabbi I saw .my first air boat as used on the everglades ,the builder had built it purely based on pictures unfortunately I could not get a ride. Mikeafloat -----Original Message----- From: Denis Buggy To: origamiboats Sent: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:06 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive THANKS ALL and Darren for your helpful replies. here are boats which overcome some of what we have discussed --- when I was in angkok I was ferried around by long and fast riverboats which carry the bulk of ll haulage in that part of Thailand their simple solution is to get a an/pickup diesel engine and rad--gearbox and prop shaft and transplant all ncluding the engine mountings from the truck and put the whole show on a alanced long frame about 12ft long which pivoted/balanced behind the ngine --- therefore a single hand could lift the prop out of the water by ressing down on a steering handle at the front of the engine --the clutch was ever operated and a gear to suit the prop speed was then chosen . loud and not pretty but it worked and the whole contraption could swing lmost 360 degrees and you could;d position the prop on either side of the boat acing forward or back . f the engine blew it was a couple of hours work to transplant another with ulley blocks from an overhanging tree or bridge . often wondered why nobody has done anything similar -- how about an entire ngine room which is bolted together like a Sherman tank --however the engine oom /box lifts 3 ft when sailing . oads of things go up and down --rv coaches have hydraulic levelling -- eleporters have hydraulic levelling --it is no big deal-- truck mounted truck ranes have legs . his is a problem area for boats -- no proper access to carry out maintaince -prop exposed to shallows --dragging when sailing -- and while I mention this -you cannot tow a commercial vehicle without withdrawing a half shaft because he bearing at the rear of the gearbox is not getting a supply of oil while owing you should check the lubrication arrangements on your marine boxes. ----- Original Message ----- From: Darren Bos To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 9:17 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive Dave Gerr's prop book is a great source of info for this stuff. The basic ideas are that large props are more efficient than small, but you are usually limited by clearance and drag for a sailboat 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] ------------------------------------ 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] | 25219|25210|2011-01-31 15:30:21|James Pronk|Re: Variable-pitch prop and no gearbox. [Was Re: jet drive]|Look at this engine. It would be great for you BS 26   http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/240267555/outboard_engine.html   No need to worry about drag from your prop while sailing! James --- On Mon, 1/31/11, Kim wrote: From: Kim Subject: [origamiboats] Variable-pitch prop and no gearbox. [Was Re: jet drive] To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Monday, January 31, 2011, 4:51 AM   Many thanks for the info, Ben! Actually, your raising of the variable-pitch prop idea has made me completely rethink the power options for my 26-footer. I think that an engine that provided about 8 HP _continuous at the shaft_ would push it through most conditions (its designed displacement is only 3 tons), and indeed for weight reasons I wouldn't want to put in anything much bigger than that. But I very definitely wasn't looking forward to paying out outrageously big bucks for a "marine" diesel, and I certainly wasn't keen on trying to find and fit a gearbox to some small industrial diesel engine (assuming such a conversion could even be done). But with a variable-pitch prop, maybe a gearbox really isn't necessary at all! If so, then I could use almost any cheap, small, fresh-water cooled industrial diesel engine, drop it on the engine beds, hook it up to the drive shaft (with the variable-pitch prop at the other end), and away I go. So if I could pick up (say) a small fresh-water cooled 12 HP @ 3000 rpm industrial engine that produced (say) 8 HP @ 1500 RPM (which might be a suitable prop shaft speed) (and which might also be its optimal revs), then that would be ideal. For example: this page lists over a thousand Chinese-made fresh-water cooled single-cylinder diesel engines - http://tinyurl.com/small-engine - many of which I bet would be ideal for the job, would probably be reliable enough, and no doubt would be as cheap as chips. Despite the extra cost of the variable-pitch prop, such an installation would probably be much cheaper overall, and without the gearbox it would probably be much lighter too. As you have pointed out, the engine itself, running constantly at its optimum RPM, would have better reliability and better fuel consumption. And of course the variable-pitch prop itself provides numerous advantages (such as optimum pitch to suit sea conditions, very little drag when sailing, etc). As James and Jason mentioned in their recent replies, Sabb did this with their former production marine engine, and as I recall they had an excellent reputation. The Sabb couldn't have suffered any from not being able to engage neutral via a gearbox, so your suggestion that just adjusting the prop blades to neutral pitch must have worked OK. The more I think about it, the more this sounds like a really good idea! Many advantages, and indeed I can't think of any disadvantages! So the question is: if this is likely to work (which I think it might), then why don't more boat owners do it? Why isn't it more popular? Although I'm talking about very low power requirements here for a 3 ton 26-footer, I assume the concept could be scaled up for larger vessels. Am I missing something really obvious that would make the whole scheme impractical? Would greatly appreciate anyone's input on this. Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht __________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: New Members 5 New Files 7 Visit Your Group To Post a message, send it to:   origamiboats@yahoogroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com MARKETPLACE Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. Find useful articles and helpful tips on living with Fibromyalgia. Visit the Fibromyalgia Zone today! Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25220|25210|2011-01-31 15:33:59|Matt Malone|Re: Chinese Outboard ?|What is that ? How many horsepower is that ? I have a problem with an engine that is so small compared to the propeller. It looks wrong. It has to be a very slow prop or something. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: jpronk1@... Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:30:05 -0800 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Variable-pitch prop and no gearbox. [Was Re: jet drive] Look at this engine. It would be great for you BS 26 http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/240267555/outboard_engine.html No need to worry about drag from your prop while sailing! James [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25221|3621|2011-01-31 15:44:12|Jim|Centerboards|I am new to this group... I am looking to buy an older shoal-draft steel or aluminum centerboard boat in the range of 40 feet LOA. Am concerned that there could be problems lurking in the centerboard trunk. So, some questions: a. metal thickness instruments can reach up into a trunk to test thickness? b. in proper building, how should the inside of the trunk be prepared and protected? c. for ongoing maintenance, how best can one clean/repaint? I am mostly concerned about the structural integrity, but seems like even getting proper antifouling up in there can be difficult. Jim| 25222|25082|2011-01-31 15:55:58|brentswain38|Longetivity of steel boat (Re: Lucas. No Origami content.)|I was told the commercial shrimpers in the Gulf of Mexico use little paint, but simply replace the hulls every few years, a totally different situation from yachts, which are usually well painted and maintained. Underwater , as long as the zincs are good, and welded on, I have had bare steel for decades, with no sign of corrosion. The bottoms of my keels have been bare for most of the last 26 years, with no corrosion. The 3mm is mainly for avoiding distortion, altho more resistance to corrosion is a side benefit. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > I am taking this information (simple Internet search) from boat building standards readily available online. When I have question, I prefer to use standards, not some websites with questionable information. And standard use REAL world (proven by time) data, not theoretical numbers. So, 0.2mm/year allowance for corrosion DOES make sense. > > As I suspect (this is my speculation), standard assumes that steel for big ships is protected only by regular primer and paint (probably cheapest one for such application). No special coating. > > I could not find where I got 3mm minimum for steel hull thickness, but it was a table for many materials included wood. More likely related to strength of material for boats with different LOA. > > Corrosion need to be taken into account. So, if you have 5mm hull and allowable thickness 3mm, you have 2mm allowance for corrosion without extra effort. Simple as that. > > P.S. Now I understand why Brent does not provide extra information for building steel boat. First - it is available everywhere. Second - people will build a boat to their own standards anyway. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > Sorry, but this makes no sense...who puts a steel boat in the water > > without painting it? Even if you did, the figures quoted are theory only > > and in the real world are meaningless. It only takes a small hole to > > sink a boat. A constant drip of salt water will corrode through steel > > much faster than steel constantly immersed in water due to the high > > level of oxygen. I believe the minimum 3mm recommendation has to do with > > distortion and strength, nothing to do with corrosion. > > > > Paul > > > > On 1/31/2011 8:17 AM, wild_explorer wrote: > > > > > > Standard numbers of reducing metal thickness because of rust for steel > > > ocean boats (without special protection) = 0.2mm/year > > > > > > 5 years of usage = 1mm loss in metal thickness. You do the math. If I > > > remember correctly, minimal recommended steel plate for the hull (for > > > small ocean boat) is 3mm. > > > > > > Lifetime of commercial steel boat is 12-24 years (depends on level of > > > steel protection). > | 25223|25082|2011-01-31 16:03:10|brentswain38|Longetivity of steel boat (Re: Lucas. No Origami content.)|.2mm a year is only for exposed steel .Gerr misses this point entirely. My 31 footer , with 30 gallons of epoxy on, has had zero mm a year over 99% of the hull in the last 26 years. The only reason steel boats have a reputation for rusting from the inside out is precisely because so few bother to paint the inside properly --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:06:26PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > I am taking this information (simple Internet search) from boat > > building standards readily available online. When I have question, I > > prefer to use standards, not some websites with questionable > > information. And standard use REAL world (proven by time) data, not > > theoretical numbers. So, 0.2mm/year allowance for corrosion DOES make > > sense. > > Those "real world data" fail to take into account a very important > factor. I've been dealing with steel around salt water for quite a few > years now, and I can give you a couple of general rules of thumb from my > experience: > > 1) Bare steel that gets wet and dry regularly: I've seen new 11-gauge > steel rust through in less than two years. *PAINT YOUR BILGES*, folks, > and paint'em heavy! There's no place on the boat that's nearly as > important to protect; boats pretty much always rust through from the > inside! Chipped decks also turn into a bad problem unless you take care > of them ASAP. Small chips tend to rust to a certain depth and then stop, > but larger areas "dish out" with a hole appearing in the center first. > > 2) Bare steel that stays dry: very slow, can't even be 0.2mm/year. I've > got unpainted surfaces on the underside of the sole that are original > from the builder - i.e., been there since 1979 - and other than a having > a "dusty" and very slightly rough surface (about like 400 grit > sandpaper), there's no sign of deterioration. No rust flakes, etc. > > 3) Bare steel that stays wet (i.e., chips in the hull paint below the > waterline): surpisingly slow, but definitely more than 0.2mm/year - > maybe 1mm or a little more (estimated.) And yes, I realize that rust has > a much larger volume than the steel that got turned into it; those oxy > molecules are pretty sizeable, and the 'x' in 'FeOx' can vary from 3 to > 5 (I think 3 is the most common.) > > Upshot: you can't "average" a "rusting rate" like that; Paul was > absolutely right when he said that it only takes a small hole to sink a > boat. It's like deciding that someone is "healthy on the average" when > their leg has been chopped off but they're perfectly fine otherwise. :) > If most of your boat is "averaging" 0.2mm/year but a spot in your bilges > is down to foil, you're goin' down. > > > ([sigh] I'm really bad about painting in a timely manner; that's why I > know all this. Rats. I wish I had as easy of a time doing it as some > folks seem to; for me, it's a huge chore, probably the most difficult > thing I do on the boat on a regular basis. Needless to say, I'm usually > behind on 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 > | 25224|25082|2011-01-31 16:24:48|brentswain38|Re: Lucas. No Origami content.|You couldn't build a boat after the collapse of civilization, but having one before the collapse of civilization would make a huge difference.It would be a huge advantage , compared to a house. That is plan A. Evergreen resin would protect steel from paint chips, in an emergency. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "scott" wrote: > > I think it is unreasonable to think those living on boats will have any different long term chance of survival than those on land.. short term yes.. I can see that. > > Even as simple as Brent's boats are there is still many thousands of things we depend on that civilisation provides. Just a sheet of steel depends on a very long chain of technology much less welding rods, welders, paints, etc.. if the end of civilisation came and we went back hundreds or thousands of years technology wise you would be much better served having a wood boat. At least you would be able to repair it with a few basic hand tools. How many years would a steel boat last if you no longer had access to epoxy to seal it. > > scott > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Barney Treadway wrote: > > > > All organisms in the history of this planet have "evolved" or adapted to eventual extinction. Evolution is generally considered "progress" but seldom is progress except for the organism itself. Everyone knows monoculture is the key to disaster but we are racing down that path in all our food crops. Recklessly throwing genes together with only a cursory glance at repercussions only at greed. It will be soon that another organism finds a way to exploit our increasing interdependence and population concentrations in cities. (Look at how aids moved within just a year). > > > > The only survivors will be the folks out on the oceans with the ability to exist outside of the mainstream. And the folks in Brent boats will have even a better chance since they will actually be sailing rather than in port having some crap "approved" hardware or software replaced. :-) > > > > BrdbMc@ wrote: > > > | 25225|25158|2011-01-31 16:31:15|brentswain38|Re: jet drive|Sabbs were extremely reliable and extremely heavy,too heavy for for their HP.. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > Was it Saab that had a variable-pitch prop with no gearbox and a slow rpm diesel? I think there was one on ebay some time ago. > James  > > --- On Sun, 1/30/11, Kim wrote: > > > From: Kim > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: jet drive > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Sunday, January 30, 2011, 6:02 AM > > >   > Ben: Sounds like your South African friend had a pretty good setup; but there's no way I could fit that sort of gear in my little 26-footer. Neither could I afford it! :-) However, your suggestion to use a variable-pitch prop is interesting. Decades ago variable-pitch props seemed to have a reputation for being tricky and unreliable. Do you think that's still true? They were certainly extremely expensive, and seem to be rare on yachts here in Australia. Not needing a gearbox with one of these would be a truly huge bonus (and would more than compensate the higher cost of the prop)! I imagine that would enable almost any type of diesel engine (combined with Brent's skeg-cooling system) to be used? But wouldn't it be advantageous to have some means of engaging neutral (ie: stopping the prop shaft spinning without having to turn the engine off)? > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > __________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Tank tests comparing fixed props to spinning props showed that the spinning prop has far more drag than a locked prop, more like the drag of a solid disk, the diameter of the spinning prop. > __________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 10:10:53PM -0000, Kim wrote: > > > > > > My understanding is that maximum motoring efficiency in a sailboat can > > > be achieved by attaching a low-ratio gearbox (3:1 or 4:1?) to a > > > conventional (small) sailboat engine and using a very large diameter > > > prop. But of course using a very large diameter prop will usually > > > completely ruin sailing performance. > > > > A variable-pitch prop, when feathered, should eliminate pretty much all > > the drag. Bonus: if you install one, you won't need a transmission. > > > > > But I understand that if an electric motor (instead of a diesel) was > > > used to drive a very large diameter prop, then this scenario might be > > > possible. Apparently electric motors are quite happy running at very > > > slow speeds for long periods of time, and (most importantly) use very > > > little current when doing so. > > > > I met a South African cruiser, many years ago, who had rigged a few > > pulleys and cams in that area so he could couple/decouple a set of > > systems, like so: > > > > 1) Engine output to prop > > 2) Prop to (decent-sized) generator > > 3) Small motor (~10HP, if I recall) to generator > > 4) Small motor to prop > > 5) Engine output to generator > > > > Very smart and fairly simple design. Obviously, it allowed him to use > > the small motor as a backup if his main engine failed - and he could > > easily charge his batteries while sailing without having an additional > > gadget hanging off his stern. He could also generate *very* serious > > power by driving the generator directly with the engine. All of this was > > easily accessible from a panel in the passageway next to the engine. > > > > > If all this is true, then maybe the efficiencies of a very large > > > diameter prop, and the advantages of having zero drag from that prop > > > when under sail, can only be achieved in a small sailboat by using an > > > electric motor to drive the prop? > > > > You'd be losing a lot of whatever efficiency you gain - and very likely, > > more than you can possibly gain - in the dual power conversion. > > > > > > 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 > __________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Denis ... > > > > I too am interested in this (using a large diameter prop). > > > > My understanding is that maximum motoring efficiency in a sailboat can be achieved by attaching a low-ratio gearbox (3:1 or 4:1?) to a conventional (small) sailboat engine and using a very large diameter prop. But of course using a very large diameter prop will usually completely ruin sailing performance. > > > > I've also read that if, when sailing, you keep the motor running and have the big prop turning at a very slow speed (50 rpm? 100 rpm?), then the prop drag is totally eliminated. But small sailboat diesels don't idle slow enough, and don't like being continuously run at idle speed, so can't be used for this. > > > > But I understand that if an electric motor (instead of a diesel) was used to drive a very large diameter prop, then this scenario might be possible. Apparently electric motors are quite happy running at very slow speeds for long periods of time, and (most importantly) use very little current when doing so. > > > > If all this is true, then maybe the efficiencies of a very large diameter prop, and the advantages of having zero drag from that prop when under sail, can only be achieved in a small sailboat by using an electric motor to drive the prop? > > > > I fear that in my lifetime the price of diesel will rise so high that I won't be able to afford to buy it, so I've been wondering if I should put an electric motor in my Swain 26. In practice it's very unlikely I'll actually do that (too expensive at the moment, batteries are too heavy, etc); but an electric motor installation might let me use a really big prop! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > __________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25226|25015|2011-01-31 17:27:27|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Matt, is possible to extract something applicable to origami hull from this document? http://www.issc.ac/img/r05.pdf --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Wild, I am pretty sure I have seen or used all the elements of this before, like lego, but the particular assembly and its exact use is unfamilar. If I were to guess, it looks like a tool used to come up | 25227|25210|2011-01-31 17:50:27|Darren Bos|Re: Chinese Outboard ?|Matt, I got fooled as well. At first I thought, neato a diesel version of a British Seagull, but then where is the flywheel, the cylinder, the rest of the engine? I think what we are looking at is the leg and the engine needs to be bolted on yet. Looks like the blue ones have the power transferred to the leg with v-belts, not sure about the green. Darren At 12:33 PM 31/01/2011, you wrote: > > > > >What is that ? How many horsepower is that ? I >have a problem with an engine that is so small >compared to the propeller. It looks wrong. It >has to be a very slow prop or something. > >Matt > >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >From: jpronk1@... >Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:30:05 -0800 >Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Variable-pitch prop >and no gearbox. [Was Re: jet drive] > >Look at this engine. It would be great for you BS 26 > >http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/240267555/outboard_engine.html > >No need to worry about drag from your prop while sailing! > >James > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25228|25210|2011-01-31 22:20:06|Paul Wilson|Re: Variable-pitch prop and no gearbox. [Was Re: jet drive]|Hi Kim, >>>>>I can't think of any disadvantages! OK, I will bite.... I have spent quite a bit of time in SE Asia where the engines shown in your link are extremely common. I have seen them in everything from fishing boats to tractors to water pumps in rice patties. I love the engines but think if you look at the size and weight of them for the HP you might find them quite heavy and bulky for your 26 footer. When you price them out, keep in mind all the extras. You will have to add a gearbox and adapt it which may be difficult unless you can fit a standard bell housing on the engine. The Chinese gearboxes available that are separate and inline to the engine can add a lot of length to the installation. The ones I have seen in small fishing boats were quite often direct drive. They are noisy so you will have to come up with some kind of exhaust manifold and adapt it. Many don't have water pumps for cooling or alternators and because there is gravity feed from the tank also don't have a fuel lift pump. The direct drive boats I have seen sometimes use a piece of hose attached to a pipe in the prop wash for a water pump. A great idea. I don't think you will get as many hours out of a Chinese Diesel. I enquired once about them and 1500 hours sticks in my mind but I can't confirm. This may because of the materials used in the cylinder sleeves and bearings. To compare, it is not uncommon to get 5000 hours out of a typical diesel. On the positive side, the Chinese diesels are relatively reliable, very cheap, quite often hand start, and make a great chug, chug noise while running with their large flywheel :). A couple of vids of Chinese Diesels running..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47VFvYb8SR0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4APgnXF5pCg My friend had a Saab Diesel with variable pitch and loved it. Variable pitch props are great but surprisingly expensive for what they are and parts can be hard to get if it is one of the really old ones like on the Saab. If you damage a blade, be ready to get your wallet out. If money is a factor, my advice for you is to keep your eyes peeled for a used diesel on Ebay, Craigslist or a local shop. You might get lucky and find a small older diesel which can be rebuilt and for which the parts are readily available. If/when you sell the boat, the resale value will be higher. Although possibly too big for your boat, I saw an entire Yanmar 2GM20 a month or so ago with zero hours on a rebuild for less than $3000 US on Ebay. I can't remember if it came with the alternator but this includes the standard Yanmar gearbox. It is hard to beat that price for an 18 hp diesel. Try to find one that was fresh-water cooled. This would be great for you....note that it has no muffler in the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-MeLQWzevs There is a used Yanmar 2QM15 on Ebay right now for $3999 US....read the questions and answers on the bottom. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/YANMAR-MARINE-DIESEL-ENGINE-MODEL-2QM15-MANUALS-_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem56409a3f61QQitemZ370451038049QQptZBoatQ5fPartsQ5fAccessoriesQ5fGear Oh yeah, one more thing, stay away from Volvo :). Good luck, Paul On 1/31/2011 10:51 PM, Kim wrote: > > > Many thanks for the info, Ben! > > Actually, your raising of the variable-pitch prop idea has made me > completely rethink the power options for my 26-footer. I think that an > engine that provided about 8 HP _continuous at the shaft_ would push > it through most conditions (its designed displacement is only 3 tons), > and indeed for weight reasons I wouldn't want to put in anything much > bigger than that. But I very definitely wasn't looking forward to > paying out outrageously big bucks for a "marine" diesel, and I > certainly wasn't keen on trying to find and fit a gearbox to some > small industrial diesel engine (assuming such a conversion could even > be done). > > But with a variable-pitch prop, maybe a gearbox really isn't necessary > at all! If so, then I could use almost any cheap, small, fresh-water > cooled industrial diesel engine, drop it on the engine beds, hook it > up to the drive shaft (with the variable-pitch prop at the other end), > and away I go. > > So if I could pick up (say) a small fresh-water cooled 12 HP @ 3000 > rpm industrial engine that produced (say) 8 HP @ 1500 RPM (which might > be a suitable prop shaft speed) (and which might also be its optimal > revs), then that would be ideal. For example: this page lists over a > thousand Chinese-made fresh-water cooled single-cylinder diesel > engines - http://tinyurl.com/small-engine - many of which I bet would > be ideal for the job, would probably be reliable enough, and no doubt > would be as cheap as chips. > > Despite the extra cost of the variable-pitch prop, such an > installation would probably be much cheaper overall, and without the > gearbox it would probably be much lighter too. As you have pointed > out, the engine itself, running constantly at its optimum RPM, would > have better reliability and better fuel consumption. And of course the > variable-pitch prop itself provides numerous advantages (such as > optimum pitch to suit sea conditions, very little drag when sailing, etc). > > As James and Jason mentioned in their recent replies, Sabb did this > with their former production marine engine, and as I recall they had > an excellent reputation. The Sabb couldn't have suffered any from not > being able to engage neutral via a gearbox, so your suggestion that > just adjusting the prop blades to neutral pitch must have worked OK. > > The more I think about it, the more this sounds like a really good > idea! Many advantages, and indeed > > So the question is: if this is likely to work (which I think it > might), then why don't more boat owners do it? Why isn't it more > popular? Although I'm talking about very low power requirements here > for a 3 ton 26-footer, I assume the concept could be scaled up for > larger vessels. Am I missing something really obvious that would make > the whole scheme impractical? > > Would greatly appreciate anyone's input on this. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > __________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:02:22AM -0000, Kim wrote: > > > > > > Ben: Sounds like your South African friend had a pretty good setup; > > > but there's no way I could fit that sort of gear in my little > > > 26-footer. Neither could I afford it! :-) > > > > I doubt that that whole pulley/belt train cost him $100. It was very > > simply made, and mostly home-built; just a bunch of pulleys bolted onto > > shafts and attached to bulkheads and upright mild steel plates, with > > home-made steel levers to tension and release them. I don't remember > > anything but the simplest details of it, but I'm sure that I could > > "reinvent" that design in an hour or so - and I'm not a mechanical > > engineer by any means. > > > > > However, your suggestion > > > to use a variable-pitch prop is interesting. Decades ago > > > variable-pitch props seemed to have a reputation for being tricky and > > > unreliable. Do you think that's still true? They were certainly > > > extremely expensive, and seem to be rare on yachts here in Australia. > > > > As I understand it, it's a pretty standard thing on Scandinavian fishing > > boats, along with hydraulic drive - it allows them to install the engine > > in pretty much any orientation they like, and they don't have to worry > > about engine-shaft alignment problems. A friend of mine has a vari-pitch > > prop on his boat, and it _was_ expensive - but he's got a 60-some-foot > > Cherubini ferro boat, is a bit of a perfectionist about his engine and > > drive train, has a steady retirement income, and has been building his > > boat for 30+ years. :) I suspect that he went for top quality and didn't > > bother about the cost. > > > > > Not needing a gearbox with one of these would be a truly huge bonus > > > (and would more than compensate the higher cost of the prop)! > > > > Don't forget the savings in diesel - since you'd be running the engine > > at a fixed RPM for max efficiency. > > > > > I imagine that would enable almost any type of diesel engine (combined > > > with Brent's skeg-cooling system) to be used? But wouldn't it be > > > advantageous to have some means of engaging neutral (ie: stopping the > > > prop shaft spinning without having to turn the engine off)? > > > > I don't know enough about it to say yea or nay; off the top, I can't see > > any reason. Neutral pitch would take care of anything like that, from > > what I can see. > > > > > > 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 > __________________________________________________________ > > | 25229|25210|2011-02-01 04:19:53|Kim|Variable-pitch prop and no gearbox. [Was Re: jet drive]|Thanks for the links Darren! Very interesting. Variable-pitch props are a lot more complicated than what I thought. I'm starting to understand why they aren't more popular! I suspect it would be a big departure from the KISS philosophy to install one. And I think you're right about the need to still have a gearbox (to keep the prop shaft revs down), and that would largely defeat the purpose of the exercise for me. I think maybe I should just stick with a conventional marine motor, gearbox and prop. That will probably be the best setup in the long run. :-) Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > > Kim, > > Reverse is certainly possible on a controllable > pitch propeller, you just rotate to negative > pitch. However, it seems to me that some kind of > transmission (or at least gearing) should still > be necessary to decrease prop shaft rpm, > otherwise you would be forced to use an > undesirably small prop in order not to overload > the engine. Below is an example of the SAAB > system and a link to a nice article with links to the major manufacturers. > > http://www.frydenbosabb.no/index.php?mapping=16 > > http://www.kastenmarine.com/CPprops.htm > > Darren | 25230|25210|2011-02-01 04:21:49|Kim|Variable-pitch prop and no gearbox. [Was Re: jet drive]|No thanks James! It looks horrible! :-) Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > Look at this engine. It would be great for you BS 26 >   > http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/240267555/outboard_engine.html >   > No need to worry about drag from your prop while sailing! > James | 25231|25210|2011-02-01 04:40:43|Kim|Variable-pitch prop and no gearbox. [Was Re: jet drive]|Many thanks for your comprehensive reply, Paul. Much appreciated. I have no experience with Chinese diesels at all, so your assessment of them is very interesting. 1500 hours -v- 5000 hours is a big difference, and no doubt partly explains why they are so cheap. I guess obtaining spare parts might be a problem too. After doing more research on variable-pitch props I found that they are more complicated than what I had imagined. I suspect owning one might bring difficulties down the track that I could do without. I think you're right when you suggest that sticking with a conventional setup would be the way to go. Everything's simpler that way! :-) Cheers ... Kim. PS: A diesel mechanic mate of mine once worked for the Green Death company here in Queensland. He would never buy a Volvo either! :-) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Hi Kim, > > >>>>>I can't think of any disadvantages! > > OK, I will bite.... > > I have spent quite a bit of time in SE Asia where the engines shown in > your link are extremely common. I have seen them in everything from > fishing boats to tractors to water pumps in rice patties. I love the > engines but think if you look at the size and weight of them for the HP > you might find them quite heavy and bulky for your 26 footer. When you > price them out, keep in mind all the extras. You will have to add a > gearbox and adapt it which may be difficult unless you can fit a > standard bell housing on the engine. The Chinese gearboxes available > that are separate and inline to the engine can add a lot of length to > the installation. The ones I have seen in small fishing boats were quite > often direct drive. They are noisy so you will have to come up with some > kind of exhaust manifold and adapt it. Many don't have water pumps for > cooling or alternators and because there is gravity feed from the tank > also don't have a fuel lift pump. The direct drive boats I have seen > sometimes use a piece of hose attached to a pipe in the prop wash for a > water pump. A great idea. > > I don't think you will get as many hours out of a Chinese Diesel. I > enquired once about them and 1500 hours sticks in my mind but I can't > confirm. This may because of the materials used in the cylinder sleeves > and bearings. To compare, it is not uncommon to get 5000 hours out of a > typical diesel. > > On the positive side, the Chinese diesels are relatively reliable, very > cheap, quite often hand start, and make a great chug, chug noise while > running with their large flywheel :). > > A couple of vids of Chinese Diesels running..... > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47VFvYb8SR0 > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4APgnXF5pCg > > My friend had a Saab Diesel with variable pitch and loved it. Variable > pitch props are great but surprisingly expensive for what they are and > parts can be hard to get if it is one of the really old ones like on the > Saab. If you damage a blade, be ready to get your wallet out. > > If money is a factor, my advice for you is to keep your eyes peeled for > a used diesel on Ebay, Craigslist or a local shop. You might get lucky > and find a small older diesel which can be rebuilt and for which the > parts are readily available. If/when you sell the boat, the resale value > will be higher. Although possibly too big for your boat, I saw an entire > Yanmar 2GM20 a month or so ago with zero hours on a rebuild for less > than $3000 US on Ebay. I can't remember if it came with the alternator > but this includes the standard Yanmar gearbox. It is hard to beat that > price for an 18 hp diesel. Try to find one that was fresh-water cooled. > > This would be great for you....note that it has no muffler in the video. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-MeLQWzevs > > There is a used Yanmar 2QM15 on Ebay right now for $3999 US....read the > questions and answers on the bottom. > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/YANMAR-MARINE-DIESEL-ENGINE-MODEL-2QM15-MANUALS-_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem56409a3f61QQitemZ370451038049QQptZBoatQ5fPartsQ5fAccessoriesQ5fGear > > Oh yeah, one more thing, stay away from Volvo :). > > Good luck, Paul | 25232|3621|2011-02-01 06:26:54|brentswain38|Re: Centerboards|Measuring the width of the centreboard trunk from the inside can give you an idea of how much metal was lost,when compared to the smoother uncorroded parts of the centreboard trunk. This could be done with an inside micrometer. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" wrote: > > I am new to this group... > > I am looking to buy an older shoal-draft steel or aluminum centerboard boat in the range of 40 feet LOA. Am concerned that there could be problems lurking in the centerboard trunk. So, some questions: > > a. metal thickness instruments can reach up into a trunk to test thickness? > > b. in proper building, how should the inside of the trunk be prepared and protected? > > c. for ongoing maintenance, how best can one clean/repaint? > > I am mostly concerned about the structural integrity, but seems like even getting proper antifouling up in there can be difficult. > > Jim > | 25233|25015|2011-02-01 07:45:28|Matt Malone|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Wild, Yes, of the few pages I skimmed of the 85 pages there, yes, it is referring to stuff that would be useful, however the document is an overview, not a detailed description of any particular method. I think one would need a degree in structures to really get anything out of it, but I draw your attention to page 393: 9.3 Effects of Imperfections Including: "Reduction of the critical (buckling) load due to the localized defect was found to reach a level which may be down to a half of that predicted by general distributed defects." In other words, any model that does not account for a wide margin of safety, or discount all results received from the model will be ignoring the effect of the defects actually introduced in its manufacture. My first shell's prof said to take all strength predictions for shells, and divide by two. He was the first one to actually produce a shell that was sufficiently free of defects as to achieve better than 95% of its theoretical strength. Before that, everyone was convinced the theory was simply wrong, by a factor of 2. I used that same manufacturing method in my graduate work. Thin-shell theory only applies if the deflections are small compared to the thickness of the shell. Tell me an orgami does not deflect more than 1/4 inch (elastically & bounce back ?) when bouncing over a reef. Any easy numbers you get from an approximate formula are going to have little relation to a boat's ability to do that, and not suffer a severe problem. When the first large wind tunnel was made at NASA Langley (then NACA), they lacked the ability to analyze welded and bolted frames, so, the entire framing with done with huge pin-joints. Now frames inside a boat are just easier to analyze and it is easier to prove they meet some strength criterion. Welded shells are still hard. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:27:24 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami Matt, is possible to extract something applicable to origami hull from this document? http://www.issc.ac/img/r05.pdf --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Wild, I am pretty sure I have seen or used all the elements of this before, like lego, but the particular assembly and its exact use is unfamilar. If I were to guess, it looks like a tool used to come up [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25234|25015|2011-02-01 09:08:40|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Matt, I was searching Internet on thin shell subject last week. It looks like a big numbers of research was done lately (mostly in civil engineering field). Much less numbers of publications are for marine applications due to complexity of the loads. Mostly, it applies to cylindrical and conical shapes with stiffeners. Many researchers agree that longitudinal stiffeners are more efficient. "Regular practices recommendations" for boat builders confirm it. There are bunch of formulas for estimating strength of stiffened or unstiffened shells available. Sailboat experience more longitudinal load than transverse, and using the hull which use "strength of the shape" looks very logical. I agree, quality of welding can make the difference. Fortunately, origami hull has less welding than regular hull and rely more on the quality of hull's plate used. Strategically placed stiffeners should be enough to reach needed safety margin coefficient (already done by Brent). As I remember from "developable faces" description, steel plate bent up to 6 degrees is considered straight. It looks like even if it possible to calculate stiffness of origami hull, it is very complex subject (I see that such research is used to earn PhD). A lot of research done on this subject lat 3-4 years using complex 3D analysis with pretty positive feedback. We, probably, would be better off following Brent's recommendations, common sense and following boatbuilding standards and regular practices. So far, origami hull solution looks pretty good from "common sense" point of view. P.S. If some of your students want to get PhD, it is easy to make 1:5 origami boat model and do all kind of destructive tests. Should be pretty simple and cheep to make it at this scale. In last research on strength of complex shaped shells and its buckling, "explosion in liquid" method was used to apply equal force to the shell from all directions. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Wild, > > Yes, of the few pages I skimmed of the 85 pages there, yes, it is referring to stuff that would be useful, however the document is an overview, not a detailed description of any particular method. I think one would need a degree in structures to really get anything out of it, but I draw your attention to page 393: > > 9.3 Effects of Imperfections > > Including: > > "Reduction of the critical (buckling) load due to the localized defect was found to reach a level which may be down to a half of that predicted by general distributed defects." > | 25235|25235|2011-02-01 11:01:50|Nick|Silver Moon|Hi group, Does anyone know anything about a BS36 for sale by the name Silver Moon? Condition, history etc . will be appreciated. I thought I saw it sold a while back, but it is back in the market. Thanks for you responses, Nick| 25236|25015|2011-02-01 12:02:44|Matt Malone|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|It is a tough subject Wild, to be able to "prove" certain performance criterion by calculations, because of the complexities of shells. This leads to the predictable result that certification might be more challenging, because certification of anything really is related to being able to document and prove performance criterion. There are plenty of examples where things were built in a way that was known to be less structurally efficient, merely to make analysis easier. Here are two examples: An old bridge, built like the wind-tunnel I mentioned with pinned joints to keep analysis simple: http://moment.mit.edu/wwwroot_old/imageLibrary/images/large_images/Fig56.JPG A relatively new structure built with pinned joints to keep analysis simple: http://moment.mit.edu/wwwroot_old/imageLibrary/images/large_images/Fig1.JPG It is the edge/end torques that make analysis hard in (relatively) more simply-loaded structures like buildings. In shells there are these end/edge torques, as well as distributed stresses. It only gets more complex when the loads get more complex. Yes, explosive hydroforming is cool. It does not make the analysis easier, but it might make mass-production of two-half, compound-curve, metal boats a lot faster. It would require a massive facility and two separate half-hull forms. Matt -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:08:40 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami Matt, I was searching Internet on thin shell subject last week. It looks like a big numbers of research was done lately (mostly in civil engineering field). Much less numbers of publications are for marine applications due to complexity of the loads. Mostly, it applies to cylindrical and conical shapes with stiffeners. Many researchers agree that longitudinal stiffeners are more efficient. "Regular practices recommendations" for boat builders confirm it. There are bunch of formulas for estimating strength of stiffened or unstiffened shells available. Sailboat experience more longitudinal load than transverse, and using the hull which use "strength of the shape" looks very logical. I agree, quality of welding can make the difference. Fortunately, origami hull has less welding than regular hull and rely more on the quality of hull's plate used. Strategically placed stiffeners should be enough to reach needed safety margin coefficient (already done by Brent). As I remember from "developable faces" description, steel plate bent up to 6 degrees is considered straight. It looks like even if it possible to calculate stiffness of origami hull, it is very complex subject (I see that such research is used to earn PhD). A lot of research done on this subject lat 3-4 years using complex 3D analysis with pretty positive feedback. We, probably, would be better off following Brent's recommendations, common sense and following boatbuilding standards and regular practices. So far, origami hull solution looks pretty good from "common sense" point of view. P.S. If some of your students want to get PhD, it is easy to make 1:5 origami boat model and do all kind of destructive tests. Should be pretty simple and cheep to make it at this scale. In last research on strength of complex shaped shells and its buckling, "explosion in liquid" method was used to apply equal force to the shell from all directions. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Wild, > > Yes, of the few pages I skimmed of the 85 pages there, yes, it is referring to stuff that would be useful, however the document is an overview, not a detailed description of any particular method. I think one would need a degree in structures to really get anything out of it, but I draw your attention to page 393: > > 9.3 Effects of Imperfections > > Including: > > "Reduction of the critical (buckling) load due to the localized defect was found to reach a level which may be down to a half of that predicted by general distributed defects." > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25237|25235|2011-02-01 14:00:43|brentswain38|Re: Silver Moon|Evan and I built that one in Comox in summer of 83. We built a wheelhouse on her, but the owner cut it off, to make it look "yachtie" She has a heat exchanger, which wouldn't be too hard to change for skeg cooling. Well built at the time. I have no idea of what condition she is in now. She wasn't spray foamed initially, so it shouldn't be too hard to check the condition of the paint under the sheet foam. If she was spray foamed, it was only recently , so check for paint under the foam. If it is painted under the foam, she is probably in good shape. It wouldn't be too hard to put a wheelhouse on her. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Nick" wrote: > > Hi group, > > Does anyone know anything about a BS36 for sale by the name Silver Moon? > Condition, history etc . will be appreciated. > I thought I saw it sold a while back, but it is back in the market. > > Thanks for you responses, > Nick > | 25238|25015|2011-02-01 14:00:44|Paul Wilson|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|I once had to "prove" that a tray holding a GPS in an aircraft instrument panel could withstand a 4 G deflection typical in a crash. The ignorant inspector couldn't figure out that once the aircraft crashed, whether the GPS kept working or not didn't really matter.... Paul On 2/2/2011 6:02 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > It is a tough subject Wild, to be able to "prove" certain performance criterion by calculations, because of the complexities of shells. This leads to the predictable result that certification might be more challenging, because certification of anything really is related to being able to document and prove performance criterion. There are plenty of examples where things were built in a way that was known to be less structurally efficient, merely to make analysis easier. Here are two examples: > > An old bridge, built like the wind-tunnel I mentioned with pinned joints to keep analysis simple: > > http://moment.mit.edu/wwwroot_old/imageLibrary/images/large_images/Fig56.JPG > > A relatively new structure built with pinned joints to keep analysis simple: > > http://moment.mit.edu/wwwroot_old/imageLibrary/images/large_images/Fig1.JPG > > It is the edge/end torques that make analysis hard in (relatively) more simply-loaded structures like buildings. In shells there are these end/edge torques, as well as distributed stresses. It only gets more complex when the loads get more complex. > > Yes, explosive hydroforming is cool. It does not make the analysis easier, but it might make mass-production of two-half, compound-curve, metal boats a lot faster. It would require a massive facility and two separate half-hull forms. > > Matt > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: williswildest@... > Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:08:40 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, > > > > I was searching Internet on thin shell subject last week. It looks like a big numbers of research was done lately (mostly in civil engineering field). Much less numbers of publications are for marine applications due to complexity of the loads. Mostly, it applies to cylindrical and conical shapes with stiffeners. Many researchers agree that longitudinal stiffeners are more efficient. "Regular practices recommendations" for boat builders confirm it. There are bunch of formulas for estimating strength of stiffened or unstiffened shells available. > > > > Sailboat experience more longitudinal load than transverse, and using the hull which use "strength of the shape" looks very logical. I agree, quality of welding can make the difference. Fortunately, origami hull has less welding than regular hull and rely more on the quality of hull's plate used. Strategically placed stiffeners should be enough to reach needed safety margin coefficient (already done by Brent). As I remember from "developable faces" description, steel plate bent up to 6 degrees is considered straight. > > > > It looks like even if it possible to calculate stiffness of origami hull, it is very complex subject (I see that such research is used to earn PhD). A lot of research done on this subject lat 3-4 years using complex 3D analysis with pretty positive feedback. > > > > We, probably, would be better off following Brent's recommendations, common sense and following boatbuilding standards and regular practices. > > > > So far, origami hull solution looks pretty good from "common sense" point of view. > > > > P.S. If some of your students want to get PhD, it is easy to make 1:5 origami boat model and do all kind of destructive tests. Should be pretty simple and cheep to make it at this scale. In last research on strength of complex shaped shells and its buckling, "explosion in liquid" method was used to apply equal force to the shell from all directions. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > >> Wild, >> Yes, of the few pages I skimmed of the 85 pages there, yes, it is referring to stuff that would be useful, however the document is an overview, not a detailed description of any particular method. I think one would need a degree in structures to really get anything out of it, but I draw your attention to page 393: >> 9.3 Effects of Imperfections >> Including: >> "Reduction of the critical (buckling) load due to the localized defect was found to reach a level which may be down to a half of that predicted by general distributed defects." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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 > > > > > | 25239|25239|2011-02-01 14:11:19|brentswain38|Free and open Sites|I've noticed in sites such as this one, where free and open discussion are encouraged rather than censored, there are more new postings in a day than the heavily censored, group think ones get in weeks, or even in a month. The message is clear, try limit free and open discussions, to allow only one point of view, and your site dies a natural death. Controversy = interest and activity. Kill controversy and you kill interest. Thanks for all the input.| 25240|25015|2011-02-01 16:02:51|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|I would appreciate your comments about Gaussian Curvature idea. See this folder: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/Origami_hulls_and_stability/Concept_of_Origami_hull/ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > It is a tough subject Wild, to be able to "prove" certain performance criterion by calculations, because of the complexities of shells. | 25241|25015|2011-02-01 18:28:32|Matt Malone|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|I have also had to prove flight hardware for G-loads and go through the inspection. Generally, it is to make sure the thing does not come airborne after a hard landing, at least for payload experimental gear. Looking at the inside of a boat in the same way (on a sunny day in the off-season) might be very useful: What might become airborne if the boat heaves quickly ? Catching the GPS in the side of the head is one thing you can do without. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: opusnz@... Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 08:01:21 +1300 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami I once had to "prove" that a tray holding a GPS in an aircraft instrument panel could withstand a 4 G deflection typical in a crash. The ignorant inspector couldn't figure out that once the aircraft crashed, whether the GPS kept working or not didn't really matter.... Paul On 2/2/2011 6:02 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > It is a tough subject Wild, to be able to "prove" certain performance criterion by calculations, because of the complexities of shells. This leads to the predictable result that certification might be more challenging, because certification of anything really is related to being able to document and prove performance criterion. There are plenty of examples where things were built in a way that was known to be less structurally efficient, merely to make analysis easier. Here are two examples: > > An old bridge, built like the wind-tunnel I mentioned with pinned joints to keep analysis simple: > > http://moment.mit.edu/wwwroot_old/imageLibrary/images/large_images/Fig56.JPG > > A relatively new structure built with pinned joints to keep analysis simple: > > http://moment.mit.edu/wwwroot_old/imageLibrary/images/large_images/Fig1.JPG > > It is the edge/end torques that make analysis hard in (relatively) more simply-loaded structures like buildings. In shells there are these end/edge torques, as well as distributed stresses. It only gets more complex when the loads get more complex. > > Yes, explosive hydroforming is cool. It does not make the analysis easier, but it might make mass-production of two-half, compound-curve, metal boats a lot faster. It would require a massive facility and two separate half-hull forms. > > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: williswildest@... > Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:08:40 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt, > > > > I was searching Internet on thin shell subject last week. It looks like a big numbers of research was done lately (mostly in civil engineering field). Much less numbers of publications are for marine applications due to complexity of the loads. Mostly, it applies to cylindrical and conical shapes with stiffeners. Many researchers agree that longitudinal stiffeners are more efficient. "Regular practices recommendations" for boat builders confirm it. There are bunch of formulas for estimating strength of stiffened or unstiffened shells available. > > > > Sailboat experience more longitudinal load than transverse, and using the hull which use "strength of the shape" looks very logical. I agree, quality of welding can make the difference. Fortunately, origami hull has less welding than regular hull and rely more on the quality of hull's plate used. Strategically placed stiffeners should be enough to reach needed safety margin coefficient (already done by Brent). As I remember from "developable faces" description, steel plate bent up to 6 degrees is considered straight. > > > > It looks like even if it possible to calculate stiffness of origami hull, it is very complex subject (I see that such research is used to earn PhD). A lot of research done on this subject lat 3-4 years using complex 3D analysis with pretty positive feedback. > > > > We, probably, would be better off following Brent's recommendations, common sense and following boatbuilding standards and regular practices. > > > > So far, origami hull solution looks pretty good from "common sense" point of view. > > > > P.S. If some of your students want to get PhD, it is easy to make 1:5 origami boat model and do all kind of destructive tests. Should be pretty simple and cheep to make it at this scale. In last research on strength of complex shaped shells and its buckling, "explosion in liquid" method was used to apply equal force to the shell from all directions. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > >> Wild, >> Yes, of the few pages I skimmed of the 85 pages there, yes, it is referring to stuff that would be useful, however the document is an overview, not a detailed description of any particular method. I think one would need a degree in structures to really get anything out of it, but I draw your attention to page 393: >> 9.3 Effects of Imperfections >> Including: >> "Reduction of the critical (buckling) load due to the localized defect was found to reach a level which may be down to a half of that predicted by general distributed defects." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 25242|25210|2011-02-01 23:09:46|James Pronk|Re: Variable-pitch prop and no gearbox. [Was Re: jet drive]|You are right Kim I think I would go for a big set of oars instead James --- On Tue, 2/1/11, Kim wrote: From: Kim Subject: [origamiboats] Variable-pitch prop and no gearbox. [Was Re: jet drive] To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Tuesday, February 1, 2011, 4:21 AM   No thanks James! It looks horrible! :-) Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > Look at this engine. It would be great for you BS 26 >   > http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/240267555/outboard_engine.html >   > No need to worry about drag from your prop while sailing! > James [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25243|25243|2011-02-02 19:33:22|wild_explorer|Technical notes for boatbuilding|Some information (rules, recommendations) for building offshore metal boat (including welding). Looks useful. http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/appmanager/absEagle/absEagleDesktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=abs_eagle_portal_rules_guides_download_page&nodePath=%2FBEA+Repository%2FRules%26Guides%2FCurrent%2F37_OffshoreRacingYachts http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/appmanager/absEagle/absEagleDesktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=abs_eagle_portal_rules_guides_download_page&nodePath=%2FBEA+Repository%2FRules%26Guides%2FCurrent%2F5_Under90_2011| 25244|25244|2011-02-02 22:44:27|Max|Shell buckling etc|Hi group, Is it possible that the recent discussions regarding shell buckling and stiffness, while interesting, are missing the forest for the trees? I get the feeling that complete lack of buckling is not the point. Maybe Brent-style boats experience local, non-plastic deformation (absorbing the energy of pounding on a beach, for example) and bounce back to their original shape. If experience doesn't correlate with theory, then it's time to revise the theory. In other words, if origami boats are experimentally stronger than suggested by models of stiff shells, then of course their resilience isn't due to their stiffness, at least not locally. Regards, Maxime| 25245|25245|2011-02-02 23:27:59|Kim|What Cyclone Yasi did to some boats in North Queensland ...|Cyclone Yasi hit the North Queensland coast last night. It was a category 5 hurricane (the highest rating) with winds of 300 km/hour (180 mph - 160 knots). It covered a huge area - the eye took over an hour to cross the coast! Unbelievably huge offshore seas - the storm surge alone that hit the coast south of the cyclone was 6 meters high. Massive destruction to property; but, amazingly, so far no known lives lost, or even serious injuries! Definitely preferable to be in a steel boat if you were unlucky enough to be caught anywhere near it! And there are plenty of "hurricane holes" in North Queensland for a (shallow draft) boat to hide in. These photos taken this morning of the boats in the Port Hinchenbrook Marina at Cardwell (a few miles south of where the eye crossed the coast) weren't so lucky: http://tinyurl.com/yasi-boats Cheers ... Kim. _____________________________________________| 25246|25244|2011-02-02 23:45:53|wild_explorer|Re: Shell buckling etc|The purpose of the discussion about "shell strength" is NOT to find any flaws in Brent's design. Brent has very good track records about strength of his hull. It is not the question in this case. "Shell strength" discussion subject is HOW to proceed. It would be nice if someone could suggest how to ESTIMATE the strength of "origami-boat" shell (again, we are not talking about Brent's hull). Research on "thin shell strength" started picking-up only several years ago. Not much done for boat building. Some research is done for big ships, which are different than small boats. Especially small sailboats. If you took a look at link I provided, there is a LOT of information how to estimate the strength of fiberglass hull for ocean racing sailboat. Not much about steel boat - just general information. It would not be exactly right to apply building rules written for big ships to build small "origami" steel boat. The strength of the shell is different. So, it has practical interest - not just theoretical. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Max" wrote: > > Hi group, > > Is it possible that the recent discussions regarding shell buckling and stiffness, while interesting, are missing the forest for the trees? > > I get the feeling that complete lack of buckling is not the point. Maybe Brent-style boats experience local, non-plastic deformation (absorbing the energy of pounding on a beach, for example) and bounce back to their original shape. > > If experience doesn't correlate with theory, then it's time to revise the theory. In other words, if origami boats are experimentally stronger than suggested by models of stiff shells, then of course their resilience isn't due to their stiffness, at least not locally. > > Regards, > Maxime > | 25247|25244|2011-02-03 01:15:47|Max|Re: Shell buckling etc|Hello wild_explorer, I'm glad you brought up ships VS small boats. You do understand the difference; however, it's disconcertingly common for the comparison to be brought up in discussions on frameless "origami" boats. Construction methods in one type have little to do with the other. In ships, the forces and weights are much larger, proportionally to the material's (steel) properties. Example: Fools (elsewhere) point out that because ships are easily sunk by hitting icebergs, then yachts run the same magnitude of danger. This is simply not true. When a ship collides with an obstacle, steel of any practical thickness is easily ripped and distorted, because it's being driven into the obstacle with the force of the ship's huge inertia. Even a very slow (2kts) "bump" on a dock is enough to cause a dent in the ship's side, bending the 2cm shell and buckling a few 2.5cm frames. When a sailboat hits an obstacle at hull speed, the forces imposed on the shell and/or framing are several orders of magnitude smaller, proportionally to the strength properties of the steel. Also, ships are essentially boxes with more or less pointy ends, in order to get as much cargo carrying capacity with minimal draft and straight sides that will fit into locks / into ports / lie neatly against docks / be built cheaply. Thus, they cannot (and are not looking to) benefit from strength derived from shape, as in frameless boats. Regards, Maxime --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > The purpose of the discussion about "shell strength" is NOT to find any flaws in Brent's design. > > Brent has very good track records about strength of his hull. It is not the question in this case. > > "Shell strength" discussion subject is HOW to proceed. It would be nice if someone could suggest how to ESTIMATE the strength of "origami-boat" shell (again, we are not talking about Brent's hull). > > Research on "thin shell strength" started picking-up only several years ago. Not much done for boat building. Some research is done for big ships, which are different than small boats. Especially small sailboats. If you took a look at link I provided, there is a LOT of information how to estimate the strength of fiberglass hull for ocean racing sailboat. Not much about steel boat - just general information. It would not be exactly right to apply building rules written for big ships to build small "origami" steel boat. The strength of the shell is different. So, it has practical interest - not just theoretical. > | 25248|25245|2011-02-03 10:13:01|Matt Malone|Re: What Cyclone Yasi did to some boats in North Queensland ...|I am amazed by how many are still floating, attached to their docks, and moved toward land. I am used to seeing half-boats. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: kimdxx@... Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 04:27:56 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] What Cyclone Yasi did to some boats in North Queensland ... Cyclone Yasi hit the North Queensland coast last night. It was a category 5 hurricane (the highest rating) with winds of 300 km/hour (180 mph - 160 knots). It covered a huge area - the eye took over an hour to cross the coast! Unbelievably huge offshore seas - the storm surge alone that hit the coast south of the cyclone was 6 meters high. Massive destruction to property; but, amazingly, so far no known lives lost, or even serious injuries! Definitely preferable to be in a steel boat if you were unlucky enough to be caught anywhere near it! And there are plenty of "hurricane holes" in North Queensland for a (shallow draft) boat to hide in. These photos taken this morning of the boats in the Port Hinchenbrook Marina at Cardwell (a few miles south of where the eye crossed the coast) weren't so lucky: http://tinyurl.com/yasi-boats Cheers ... Kim. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25249|25244|2011-02-03 12:20:32|Matt Malone|Re: Shell buckling etc|Maxime, This discussion grew out of the thread about engineers dissing Brent on a couple of forums. The discussion has come up before of course. There is no theoretical gap. The properties of steel are well known, the equations governing any bit of a shell are well known. Steady fluids on a hull are well known. Waves, turbulence, and unsteady things, not so much. It is putting them all together that is a problem, like singing, riding a unicycle, balancing a ball on your nose and playing the accordian ... all on a flight of stairs. It is the inability to have confidence about what is going to happen in ANY particular orgami design (like one that Wild sketches up) that makes engineers go, "hold on, I cannot promise anything, and some really bad stuff might happen." Some engineers might have said to Brent in the past, that bad stuff will certainly happen, imminently, and history seems to have proven that wrong for a few particular designs, under Brent's guidance during construction. Engineers who predict certain failure, when in fact they do not know, are simply idiots. Please though, when an honest, conscientious and skilled engineer is saying that they do not know, it is *not* cause to ignore them. It is cause to realize, from a safety point of view, you might be stepping back a few centuries in boating to an era of trial and error, better known as drowning, unless you take serious heed of the potential for the unknown, and take precautions in safety gear like the worst will certainly happen. Brent has done the trial and error, and, as I understand it, design improvements, on a few designs that have taken repeated beatings in extreme conditions. Regardless of how much one might believe the unknowns have been eliminated, even in this small area of orgami, I hope that no one is going anywhere in any boat of any manufacture without a really good life raft. I certainly am not that confident of my own welding. And then, if one removes either or both of those two elements: the particular proven BS designs, and the particular skill of Brent's guidance in construction, then caution should make you at least listen to the engineers who say, no one can be certain of what will happen. A prudent person will take appropriate caution, not just drop it in the water and immediately push off to go around the world. The problem is, no one knows what a different orgami design will do until they try it. I reject the engineer doom-sayers. A new design means new experience is needed -- old experience is nice to have around, but, a good life raft is better. An often-cited and seldom-challenged statement is, steel is way "stronger" or "tougher" than fibreglass. No one can debate, that after a hurricane many cheaply-made and not so cheaply-priced production fibreglass boats are seen ripped into several pieces, expensive interiors awash in detritus. These boats cost as much as a house and they are built with more attention to the look of the interior than the sturdiness of the hull. The hurricane pictures tell the truth of it. (The video of an orgami been dragged through a field by a tow truck is way cool contrast.) The fact is, there are a few properly-constructed fibreglass boats and they do not get ripped into several pieces. Properly engineered fibreglass is surprisingly strong, easily stronger than steel. "Hold on", you say, "what garbage is this? Fibreglass is stronger than steel? But fibreglass is lighter, it looks like *plastic* (said with sneer). I see glass break all the time ! Steel is just so tough in the hands, cold and hard; tools are made out of steel. Steel has to be 20 times stronger than glass. What you are saying must be complete rubbish ! Another reason to ignore those goofy engineers..." Surprisingly, not at all true. A fibreglass laminate/layup that is double the strength of common steel is quite possible because the fibres themselves are 6 to 8 times stronger than reasonably good steel sheet material. Yes, the material "glass", when made into a fibre, is stronger than steel, BY A LOT. It is how this strength is used or misused or wasted that makes all the difference. Yes, there are boats that cost more than a house that I could put a hole in with a framing hammer. But I have seen fibreglass that I have made with my own hands on highspeed film in a blast / bomb situation (military research). A structure that was certainly no stiffer than my 16' daysailer to the hand-press / hand-thump, flapped in the wind like a sheet moving at least 20% of its overal dimension on each side, and then return to its original shape without any sign of damage. Imagine a fibreglass boat with a 10 foot beam that flaps in and out between 6 feet and 14 feet beam, (the headroom fluctuating oppositely) and then snaps back to a 10 foot beam boat, without a scratch on it. If all you have seen is shreds of fibreglass boats left after a hurricane, then you have no idea what is possible with properly designed fibreglass. Fibreglass is less stiff, so, more flexible -- more flex in impact means, lower forces. On total energy absorbed before failure, fibreglass is about 20-40% of good quality low alloy steel, dimension for dimension, but a good off-shore fibreglass boat is INCHES thick over most of the bottom, whereas steel is large fractions of an inch thick, only in small areas. The one real weakness of fibreglass is, it is not at all good at abraison resistance, like when one is rubbing repeatedly on a pointy rock. This one point alone is more than enough reason to prefer steel. I will not argue with anyone who chooses this one reason. So, sure, steel is a good choice for a small boat, but, do not think it is 20 times better than a properly built fibreglass boat, because, it simply is not. In some ways, the fibreglass boat can be better... rusting comes to mind. One important way that fibreglass is better, one that makes an engineer happy, is when it comes out of the mould, a fibreglass boat has very little residual stresses. One is more certain to be using its entire strength envelope of the material when the material is in service. If one were to equate a strength envelope and residual stresses to a person swinging a tennis racket in a small room, then for a fibreglass boat the tennis player starts swinging in the middle of the room. With a steel boat, sure, most of the boat is in a low pre-stress state that is like being near the middle of the room. We can however know for sure, for some sections, we have stuffed that tennis player and his racket into a corner, and there is a lot less room to move around, a lot less of the strength envelope of the steel is available for use. The most important part is, we do not know for sure how close we are to the edges of the envelope, or where those locations are in the boat that are close to the edges, and how those areas will change as the loading on the boat changes. (rip) (crease, flatten, crease, flatten, crease, rip) And this does not even start to account for the variance in people's welding skills. It makes an engineer just shiver thinking about all the things that cannot be known. Brent has shown how to make a steel boat that can compete, and in some important ways exceeds the abilities of a quality off-shore fibreglass boat (probably particularly when it comes to rubbing on pointy things repeatedly) at a fraction of the price, built in your backyard, built a bit at a time, with a readily available material. To me, that is way cooler than watching a fibreglass structure flap like a sheet on highspeed film when a bomb goes off. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: maxcamirand@... Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 03:44:16 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Shell buckling etc Hi group, Is it possible that the recent discussions regarding shell buckling and stiffness, while interesting, are missing the forest for the trees? I get the feeling that complete lack of buckling is not the point. Maybe Brent-style boats experience local, non-plastic deformation (absorbing the energy of pounding on a beach, for example) and bounce back to their original shape. If experience doesn't correlate with theory, then it's time to revise the theory. In other words, if origami boats are experimentally stronger than suggested by models of stiff shells, then of course their resilience isn't due to their stiffness, at least not locally. Regards, Maxime [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25250|25244|2011-02-03 13:52:25|wild_explorer|Re: Shell buckling etc|Exactly my point. The problem is how to take into an account the strength of the shape of origami hull "based on engineering principles"? It is already done trough "service experience" (main option in the quote below). It is not necessary "to change the rules" - ABS rules change pretty often based on new data. Quote from ABS document (which I found on Internet yesterday) for offshore racing yachts: Pub37_ORY_Guide.pdf Page 6 1.5.2 The committee is at all times ready to consider alternative arrangements and scantlings which can be shown, trough either satisfactory service experience or a systematic analysis based on sound engineering principles, to meet the overall safety and strength standards of the Guide. *** skipped **** 1.5.3 Yachts which contain novel features of design in respect of the hull to which the provisions of the Guide are not directly applicable may be classed, when approved by the Committee, on the basis that the Guide insofar as applicable has been complied with and that special consideration has been given to the novel features based on the best information available at the time. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Max" wrote: > > Hello wild_explorer, > > I'm glad you brought up ships VS small boats. You do understand the difference; however, it's disconcertingly common for the comparison to be brought up in discussions on frameless "origami" boats. > > Construction methods in one type have little to do with the other. In ships, the forces and weights are much larger, proportionally to the material's (steel) properties. > > **** Skipped **** > > Also, ships are essentially boxes with more or less pointy ends, in order to get as much cargo carrying capacity with minimal draft and straight sides that will fit into locks / into ports / lie neatly against docks / be built cheaply. Thus, they cannot (and are not looking to) benefit from strength derived from shape, as in frameless boats. > > Regards, > Maxime > | 25251|25244|2011-02-03 14:09:37|wild_explorer|Re: Shell buckling etc|There is no need to change the rules. See quote below from ABS document. As well as to "revise the theory" - there is no reliable method so far. "Satisfactory service experience " is a main option. Already applies to Brent's design. "Systematic analysis based on sound engineering principles" is secondary option - this one is what would be interesting, could be done and applied to future development of "origami hull". This is from ABS rules for Offshore Racing Yachts: Pub37_ORY_Guide.pdf Page 6 1.5.2 The committee is at all times ready to consider alternative arrangements and scantlings which can be shown, trough either satisfactory service experience or a systematic analysis based on sound engineering principles, to meet the overall safety and strength standards of the Guide. *** skipped **** 1.5.3 Yachts which contain novel features of design in respect of the hull to which the provisions of the Guide are not directly applicable may be classed, when approved by the Committee, on the basis that the Guide insofar as applicable has been complied with and that special consideration has been given to the novel features based on the best information available at the time. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Max" wrote: > If experience doesn't correlate with theory, then it's time to revise the theory. In other words, if origami boats are experimentally stronger than suggested by models of stiff shells, then of course their resilience isn't due to their stiffness, at least not locally. > > Regards, > Maxime > | 25252|25244|2011-02-03 14:17:06|martin demers|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|we would need a volunteer to travel the world with a BS boat and park the boat in every huracanes, tornados and cyclones anounce and against reef, and do a report after the boat have encounter a few dozens of those that would be a good test to convince scecptics. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 19:09:35 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Shell buckling etc There is no need to change the rules. See quote below from ABS document. As well as to "revise the theory" - there is no reliable method so far. "Satisfactory service experience " is a main option. Already applies to Brent's design. "Systematic analysis based on sound engineering principles" is secondary option - this one is what would be interesting, could be done and applied to future development of "origami hull". This is from ABS rules for Offshore Racing Yachts: Pub37_ORY_Guide.pdf Page 6 1.5.2 The committee is at all times ready to consider alternative arrangements and scantlings which can be shown, trough either satisfactory service experience or a systematic analysis based on sound engineering principles, to meet the overall safety and strength standards of the Guide. *** skipped **** 1.5.3 Yachts which contain novel features of design in respect of the hull to which the provisions of the Guide are not directly applicable may be classed, when approved by the Committee, on the basis that the Guide insofar as applicable has been complied with and that special consideration has been given to the novel features based on the best information available at the time. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Max" wrote: > If experience doesn't correlate with theory, then it's time to revise the theory. In other words, if origami boats are experimentally stronger than suggested by models of stiff shells, then of course their resilience isn't due to their stiffness, at least not locally. > > Regards, > Maxime > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25253|25244|2011-02-03 14:37:29|wild_explorer|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|"Satisfactory service experience" for Brent's design is about 30 years or so. If such option is acceptable by ABS (as for most old designs which were done without engineering data backup at that time), why is not it good for skeptics? No need to go into an extreme ;)) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > we would need a volunteer to travel the world with a BS boat and park the boat in every huracanes, tornados and cyclones anounce and against reef, > and do a report after the boat have encounter a few dozens of those > that would be a good test to convince scecptics. > > Martin. > | 25254|25244|2011-02-03 15:28:50|martin demers|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|what I meant is if we (or someone) would like to know how far the BS design could be pushed before it starts to have sign of failure. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 19:37:28 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test "Satisfactory service experience" for Brent's design is about 30 years or so. If such option is acceptable by ABS (as for most old designs which were done without engineering data backup at that time), why is not it good for skeptics? No need to go into an extreme ;)) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > we would need a volunteer to travel the world with a BS boat and park the boat in every huracanes, tornados and cyclones anounce and against reef, > and do a report after the boat have encounter a few dozens of those > that would be a good test to convince scecptics. > > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25255|25244|2011-02-03 15:37:16|Paul Wilson|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|>>>>>>"Satisfactory service experience" for Brent's design is about 30 years or so. >>>>If such option is acceptable by ABS (as for most old designs which were done without engineering data backup at that time), why is not it good for skeptics? No need to go into an extreme ;)) Agreed. These are proven boats. However, I think when people talk as if they aren't and assume that ABS or any other approval is needed or even desirable perpetuates the myth that they a lacking in some regard. They simply aren't. If 30 yrs of hard sailing with many boats won't convince the skeptics, nothing will. Also, these are also home-built boats. Does it really matter what ABS or anyone else thinks? Is any home-builder going to build a boat to survey and go through all that entails? I doubt it. Cheers, Paul| 25256|25244|2011-02-03 17:07:04|wild_explorer|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|I was rereading my own post... Wait a minute, I am this skeptic !!! I was asking about a year ago if someone put Brent's boat in 3D, have hydrostatics and stability data for his design. The response from the group was "You do not need it - it is proven design". Such response was not good enough for ME. So, I did some extra research/work and got stability data for BS36. As a side effect, now I understand what makes "origami" hull different from "standard" hull. So, now I have reliable "service data" AND "engineering data" - no more room for skepticism on this subject. It cleared some doubts about using steel mast and boom as well. About DIY-builders. Some people do not realize that they need to follow Brent's recommendation "up to the letter". Not just use it as a "general guide". If you take a look at 3D for "origami" hull you can see problem areas which Brent already took care of by reinforcing it. Some solutions are not for "the look". Like "rub-rail" on the sheer line - it is STRUCTURAL element. You better to use good quality pipe as well as good quality plate for the hull. Same is for a spay foam. Not so many people considering it as a structural element for stress distribution trough the hull. Etc, etc, etc... About standards. It give good tips in many areas. If I am going to build "origami" boat, I will NOT use ABS - it is not strict enough for ME. I will use NBS instead as a guide-line. And yes, I will use slightly different rules for "origami" hull's shell. I want to be sure that the build is done to the best standard available, because its FOR ME - not because I need to comply with minimum building requirements ;) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Agreed. These are proven boats. However, I think when people talk as > if they aren't and assume that ABS or any other approval is needed or > even desirable perpetuates the myth that they a lacking in some regard. > They simply aren't. If 30 yrs of hard sailing with many boats won't > convince the skeptics, nothing will. > > Also, these are also home-built boats. Does it really matter what ABS > or anyone else thinks? Is any home-builder going to build a boat to > survey and go through all that entails? I doubt it. > > Cheers, Paul > | 25257|25244|2011-02-03 19:50:28|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|With all honesty, I suggest complying with ABS etc. is a hard nut to crack. Only one Nordhavn has been built to ABS. One of the bigger ones, and the extra cost of complying with abs was about 400-500.000$, iirc. Thats the extra cost on top of boat. ABS standards do not apply to hull plate only ... but things like certified hatches, certified hose, sanitation and gas etc. and a whole lot of other things. Just the numbers required, for each part, for ANY classification are a royal pain. Not too hard to do, but any one will take a few days. And there are about 30 of them, just doing the paperwork, with the calculations and the numbers, will take at least, at a very minimum, 60 days to print and calculate (2 days each). Here I am NOT talking about getting the certification, but just complying with it. It requires that you print out how you complied with each part of the spec. Things like minimum height of safety lines, thickness of same, electric cable thickness and type, battery cutoffs, type of battery cutoff, length of line, how throughulls are mounted, strength of same, all of these are systems, and if you insist on complying with the standards, it will cost a lot of money. Some are good, some are not really necessary, and some may be a waste of money. In most cases, industrial stuff, one or 2 sizes up, would be a lot better and a lot cheaper. Some might be usable (by ABS/RINA/etc) for marine apps, and some might not, simply because that particular part has not been certified. I agree that the standards give excellent guidance. The canadian standards are all online, btw, as I recall. Small Boat Directive or something like that, iirc. You gotta buy the ABS I think. The european small craft standards are also public for homebuilders. > > About standards. It give good tips in many areas. If I am going to > build "origami" boat, I will NOT use ABS - it is not strict enough for ME. | 25258|25244|2011-02-03 20:39:57|wild_explorer|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|Yep, for DIY you need to use common sense. If Brent recommends industrial staff as good as marine but cheaper (and you feel the same) - use it. It might even exceed standard requirements (but not approved). And we are not talking about certification - just to give yourself a peace of mind. ABS, NBS is available online for free. ABYC - not free (and I do not see need to use it so far) I took just a brief look at ABS website. It looks like it has only 2 sections applicable to small steel sailboats: Offshore Racing Yachts Steel Vessels Under 90 Meters (295 Feet) in Length May be I am mistaken about complexity of ABS rules. NBS looks more useful for me for vessels under 15m (more practical information). --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > > In most cases, industrial stuff, one or 2 sizes up, would be a lot > better and a lot cheaper. > Some might be usable (by ABS/RINA/etc) for marine apps, and some might > not, simply because that particular part has not been certified. > > I agree that the standards give excellent guidance. > The canadian standards are all online, btw, as I recall. Small Boat > Directive or something like that, iirc. > You gotta buy the ABS I think. > The european small craft standards are also public for homebuilders. > > > > > About standards. It give good tips in many areas. If I am going to > > build "origami" boat, I will NOT use ABS - it is not strict enough for ME. > | 25259|25015|2011-02-03 21:41:27|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Paul ("opuspaul"), nice 3D models!!! What are Gaussian numbers range (hull shell only - without deck, keel, transom)?| 25260|25244|2011-02-03 22:25:30|Paul Wilson|Renamed 3D modeling accuracy|>>>If you take a look at 3D for "origami" hull you can see problem areas which Brent already took care of by reinforcing it. Wild, Regarding your 3D models pdf in your "Concept of Origami Hulls" folder. I hate to be critical but I am not nearly as comfortable with your 3D modeling as you are. What you call "problem areas" are more a problem with distortion and inaccuracy in your models and nothing to do with areas needing reinforcement. You are mistaking the Gaussian function in Freeship/ Delftship with structure. The Gaussian curve function is only a measure of fairness. If done right, there should be very little or none. In Example 2 you have vertical surfaces with corners causing the distortion. This is like putting vertical chines in the topsides. Example 3 is just wrong....it is NOT a developable hull with the curve in the bow sections. The blue concave sections and red convex sections are the give-away. This hull could never be made from two plates. Your model in Example 4 is full of distortion.....you shouldn't have any red sections. I suspect you are putting vertical creases in your model where you should have curves. The shaded views of your model in your other files show a big bulge in the chines. The real origami designs don't have this kind of distortion. I have done some 3D modeling myself ...have a look at what I mean. I have posted a couple of screen shots under Photos/ Opus IV. The Gaussian curve is shown on the left scale. The distortion throughout the model and at the apexes of the chine are much less than your models and are in the green. The 48 footer is a 3 chine design I have been playing with. Both of these models would be very easy to build in Origami and the plates would naturally lay together at the chines. I have built one BS 36 boats and have a set of plans. For this reason, I believe my BS 36 model is much more accurate than yours, yet I would have to spend much more time on the design to have enough confidence to post a stability curve. If someone got a hold of the Freeship file, I would be basically giving the plans away for free. I am sure Brent doesn't want that and I don't wish to stick my head out that way. I am honestly not trying to yank your chain, but for some reason, you keep pushing my buttons. I probably should have said something before but it is important we keep to the facts and once posted, your files are in internet land forever. I like that you have tried to do the stability curves and appreciate your efforts but until you get the model right, I believe it is just a guideline and is an assembly of assumptions. In my opinion, to even hint that your stability curves or designs are a Brent Swain design is wrong. Paul| 25261|25015|2011-02-03 22:44:57|Paul Wilson|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Thanks, the 48 footer took me awhile....I haven't worked on it for several years....I have been too busy and if I finish the design I will have to build it. The Gaussian numbers are on the left scale in the picture. Yellow and green is curve in only one direction so should be fully unfoldable or developable. Blue is concave, compound curve. Red is convex, compound curve. It is very difficult to unfold the plates if they had red or blue colors. The program will try, but the end result won't be as planned. I have made dinghies using the develop function in Freeship and they have always come out to plan if they are faired correctly first. Cheers, Paul On 2/4/2011 3:41 PM, wild_explorer wrote: > > Paul ("opuspaul"), nice 3D models!!! What are Gaussian numbers range > (hull shell only - without deck, keel, transom)? > > | 25262|25244|2011-02-03 23:39:47|wild_explorer|Re: Renamed 3D modeling accuracy|Paul, do not hate to be critical - I appreciate your criticism. This is open discussion - all reasonably supported comments are welcome. Sorry for pushing your buttons - I did not realize it. You have your own experience in 3D modeling, you gave it a lot of thoughts and effort. So, share what you think is allowable in public group without interfering with Brent's copyrights. If you think something need to be clarified over e-mail, be it. What do you think about Example #5 ??? It all red, but numbers close to 0. Your explanation? About model for stability curve. I made it as close as practical - not perfect. I made several test-models (not Brent boat) to verify how imperfections will affect stability curve. Imperfections you are talking about do not make any difference. Stability curve inaccuracy might be couple degrees off - not a big deal. I did not release picture of detailed BS36's 3D model on Internet for the same reason - Brents' copyrights. 3D model (with dimensions) was accepted by him. He knows his design better and what is critical for it. Again, my BS36's 3D model is not perfect, but acceptable for the purpose it was made. Your 3D models look very nice. Were you able to get hull patterns for for these 3D models? If you did, does BS36 pattern look close to what you have on original BS36 plans? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > Wild, > > Regarding your 3D models pdf in your "Concept of Origami Hulls" folder. > > I hate to be critical but I am not nearly as comfortable with your 3D > modeling as you are. What you call "problem areas" are more a problem > with distortion and inaccuracy in your models and nothing to do with > areas needing reinforcement. You are mistaking the Gaussian function in > Freeship/ Delftship with structure. The Gaussian curve function is only > a measure of fairness. If done right, there should be very little or > none. | 25263|25015|2011-02-03 23:51:31|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|I can not see numbers (even with magnification). I see wide range of colors and #####.## - #######.##. I found that deleting everything, but shell, gives more accurate results. Could you give numbers for shell only? Now I see you reasons for not completing 3D model - you just want to delay "building stage". Just kidding ;)) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Thanks, the 48 footer took me awhile....I haven't worked on it for > several years....I have been too busy and if I finish the design I will > have to build it. > > The Gaussian numbers are on the left scale in the picture. Yellow and | 25264|25244|2011-02-04 08:42:23|Matt Malone|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|Wild, a couple of days ago you asked me to look at: Origami_and_Guassian_curvature_visualization.pdf and say what I think. I am really not clear on why that vertical negative band amid-ships has to exist in the design. There is no reason for the design not to be convex in both directions at that point. To a lesser extent, both the fore and aft negative bands are hard to understand. As a visualization technique, it is interesting. I think it would be more interesting to do a visualization on a boat that is actually constructed. If a boat built on frames, and a BS boat were done and compared, then it seems this might be a good way of showing how a BS, with typical construction skill, comes out more fair. Not sure what visualization I would use for on a design. Shouldn't the design software be producing a reasonably fair shape, automatically ? The program that was mentioned on this group about a year ago, I played with it and it seemed pretty hard to make a non-fair shape. Also, I am a little unclear on the definition of Gauss curvature in this visualization. Are the orientation of the axes that the curvature is calculated on chosen for the maximum value ? After all, z = x * y is flat on both the x and y axes, but +/- 45 axes one gets the maximum saddle point effect and choosing those axes would give the largest magnitude of curvature. It is cold, there is more than a foot of snow outside my garage, and I just want to weld something. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25265|25244|2011-02-04 11:59:49|wild_explorer|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|Matt, If you are talking about Example #1, Vertical negative bands are bulkhead. What I have noticed, if you take cylinder and top/bottom for it - it is developable surfaces separately, but if you put them together it is a different story. Looks to me (just my speculation) it might have the same effect as welding T-shape from 2 plates - there is some resulting distortion. Again, this is only my speculation what happens in 3D (I could not find acceptable answer so far). There is some information on algorithm of finding developable surfaces here http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Mxt2HnsRnp8J:202.114.89.60/resource/pdf/698.pdf+Quasi-developable+B-spline+surfaces+in+ship+hull+design&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESinXxnMm3SLBRshiCbzzolUuGs4knBveAGQULFBPYarA8CSuzaD795vMh1hBbTZAbBTk2ztaiskmfrJjMkKvigsoy9GZNs3MAFeqoGYmwRwrX0yilb5WmZzt4Yrx42ry3Pwk_7r&sig=AHIEtbSHDFU6DNnyB6JnvgaWJpQNrfvEZg I think good start will be to make simple test-shapes and see what Gaussian curvature numbers are. And see if it could be applied to estimate strength of origami hull. I know that Gauassian number for flat plate, cylinder is zero. I will put them together for references. Let forget about boat's hull for now. Software will produce fair shape between 2 point. There is an algorithm for automatic fairness of the hull with multi-points, but it is unlikely it used yet. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > Origami_and_Guassian_curvature_visualization.pdf > > > > and say what I think. I am really not clear on why that vertical negative band amid-ships has to exist in the design. There is no reason for the design not to be convex in both directions at that point. To a lesser extent, both the fore and aft negative bands are hard to understand. As a visualization technique, it is interesting. I think it would be more interesting to do a visualization on a boat that is actually constructed. If a boat built on frames, and a BS boat were done and compared, then it seems this might be a good way of showing how a BS, with typical construction skill, comes out more fair. Not sure what visualization I would use for on a design. Shouldn't the design software be producing a reasonably fair shape, automatically ? The program that was mentioned on this group about a year ago, I played with it and it seemed pretty hard to make a non-fair shape. > > Also, I am a little unclear on the definition of Gauss curvature in this visualization. Are the orientation of the axes that the curvature is calculated on chosen for the maximum value ? After all, z = x * y is flat on both the x and y axes, but +/- 45 axes one gets the maximum saddle point effect and choosing those axes would give the largest magnitude of curvature. > > It is cold, there is more than a foot of snow outside my garage, and I just want to weld something. > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25266|25015|2011-02-04 15:05:35|Paul Wilson|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Sorry about that....I have moved the pictures to the file section in Paul Wilson's Folder. Yahoo was changing the resolution of the pictures on me but doesn't when you post in the file section. On 2/4/2011 5:51 PM, wild_explorer wrote: > > I can not see numbers (even with magnification). I see wide range of > colors and #####.## - #######.##. I found that deleting everything, > but shell, gives more accurate results. Could you give numbers for > shell only? > > Now I see you reasons for not completing 3D model - you just want to > delay "building stage". Just kidding ;)) > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > Thanks, the 48 footer took me awhile....I haven't worked on it for > > several years....I have been too busy and if I finish the design I will > > have to build it. > > > > The Gaussian numbers are on the left scale in the picture. Yellow and > > | 25267|25244|2011-02-04 15:50:01|Paul Wilson|Re: Renamed 3D modeling accuracy|>>>>>>What do you think about Example #5 ??? It all red, but numbers close to 0. Your explanation? I think I see what you are doing wrong. I think you have designed it as a series of flat plates and it is showing red at the corner of every plate. A curved surface should never have a corner or crease in the middle of it. The control net "pulls" the hull but is not "on" the hull. I have posted a picture in Paul Wilson's Folder showing the control net on my model so you see what I mean. The light grey lines are not creases, only the red heavy lines. Read more about the control net and the crease and corner function. The program will automatically fair between multiple control points (curves) on the net but the control net will float off the model. The fewer control points you use, the easier it is to get fair. If required, you can use control curves for fairing as well. Start with just a few points and only add more when necessary. Use the visible stations function to get bulkheads. If you really want to have a bulkhead developed, do it as a separate layer matching to the station line, do not attach it to the rest of the model or you will end up with distortion in the hull. There is a yahoo group for Freeship which has more info. Also more info here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/freeship/files/ I am using the paid version of Delftship, which does automatic fairing of surfaces and keeps getting more features. Freeship is no longer supported but still a good program. Many people think Freeship is better than the free version of Delftship but you can try both and see which you like. I have never done the hull patterns on the 36....I could do it but it would take me a full day of screwing around with printers and a scale ruler to compare it with the plans. If I scanned the full set of plans and got a digital version, that might quicken things up and help. I want to spend more time with yacht design but I am rebuilding a house as well as refitting a boat and I need more time in the day. Cheers, Paul On 2/4/2011 5:39 PM, wild_explorer wrote: > > Paul, do not hate to be critical - I appreciate your criticism. This > is open discussion - all reasonably supported comments are welcome. > Sorry for pushing your buttons - I did not realize it. > > You have your own experience in 3D modeling, you gave it a lot of > thoughts and effort. So, share what you think is allowable in public > group without interfering with Brent's copyrights. If you think > something need to be clarified over e-mail, be it. > > > > About model for stability curve. I made it as close as practical - not > perfect. I made several test-models (not Brent boat) to verify how > imperfections will affect stability curve. Imperfections you are > talking about do not make any difference. Stability curve inaccuracy > might be couple degrees off - not a big deal. > > I did not release picture of detailed BS36's 3D model on Internet for > the same reason - Brents' copyrights. 3D model (with dimensions) was > accepted by him. He knows his design better and what is critical for > it. Again, my BS36's 3D model is not perfect, but acceptable for the > purpose it was made. > > Your 3D models look very nice. Were you able to get hull patterns for > for these 3D models? If you did, does BS36 pattern look close to what > you have on original BS36 plans? > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > > > Wild, > > > > Regarding your 3D models pdf in your "Concept of Origami Hulls" folder. > > > > I hate to be critical but I am not nearly as comfortable with your 3D > > modeling as you are. What you call "problem areas" are more a problem > > with distortion and inaccuracy in your models and nothing to do with > > areas needing reinforcement. You are mistaking the Gaussian function in > > Freeship/ Delftship with structure. The Gaussian curve function is only > > a measure of fairness. If done right, there should be very little or > > none. > > | 25268|25244|2011-02-04 16:43:12|martin demers|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|I have a 37ft steel on frames, not the same shape than the BS 36, but if you need some pictures just ask me. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: m_j_malone@... Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:42:14 -0500 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization Wild, a couple of days ago you asked me to look at: Origami_and_Guassian_curvature_visualization.pdf and say what I think. I am really not clear on why that vertical negative band amid-ships has to exist in the design. There is no reason for the design not to be convex in both directions at that point. To a lesser extent, both the fore and aft negative bands are hard to understand. As a visualization technique, it is interesting. I think it would be more interesting to do a visualization on a boat that is actually constructed. If a boat built on frames, and a BS boat were done and compared, then it seems this might be a good way of showing how a BS, with typical construction skill, comes out more fair. Not sure what visualization I would use for on a design. Shouldn't the design software be producing a reasonably fair shape, automatically ? The program that was mentioned on this group about a year ago, I played with it and it seemed pretty hard to make a non-fair shape. Also, I am a little unclear on the definition of Gauss curvature in this visualization. Are the orientation of the axes that the curvature is calculated on chosen for the maximum value ? After all, z = x * y is flat on both the x and y axes, but +/- 45 axes one gets the maximum saddle point effect and choosing those axes would give the largest magnitude of curvature. It is cold, there is more than a foot of snow outside my garage, and I just want to weld something. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25269|25244|2011-02-04 17:26:22|wild_explorer|Re: Renamed 3D modeling accuracy|Matt, Paul. I do not want to high-jack this group with posts about 3D (which are boring for most people). I am taking this subject to private e-mails to discuss how to proceed. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > >>>>>>What do you think about Example #5 ??? It all red, but numbers > close to 0. Your explanation? > > I think I see what you are doing wrong. I think you have designed it as > | 25270|25244|2011-02-04 17:29:20|wild_explorer|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|If you have it in 3D it would be interesting to compare. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > I have a 37ft steel on frames, not the same shape than the BS 36, but if you need some pictures just ask me. > > Martin. > > | 25271|25244|2011-02-04 17:50:23|martin demers|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|unfortunately I dont, I got some paper plans that came with the boat when I bought it, they are those of a similar boat model(canadian northern 35 sold by C&C before they went to fiberglass boats) but are not my sailboat exact plans. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 22:29:17 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization If you have it in 3D it would be interesting to compare. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > I have a 37ft steel on frames, not the same shape than the BS 36, but if you need some pictures just ask me. > > Martin. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25272|25244|2011-02-04 21:35:11|wild_explorer|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|Thanks, Martin. Now I know whom to ask if I want to take a look at it. I will not use it, because it is probably under copyright law. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > unfortunately I dont, > I got some paper plans that came with the boat when I bought it, they are those of a similar boat model(canadian northern 35 sold by C&C before they went to fiberglass boats) but are not my sailboat exact plans. > > Martin. | 25273|25015|2011-02-04 21:36:54|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Paul, what is a displacement of your 48 footer? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Thanks, the 48 footer took me awhile.... | 25274|25015|2011-02-04 22:02:40|Paul Wilson|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|About 14 metric tons but nothing is final with the keel arrangement which could be anything..... I haven't done any weight calculations but the design is intended to be done out of aluminum so on the light side. It is easy to increase the displacement a bit with the transform function of the program. Paul On 2/5/2011 3:36 PM, wild_explorer wrote: > > Paul, what is a displacement of your 48 footer? > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > Thanks, the 48 footer took me awhile.... > > | 25275|25015|2011-02-04 23:40:34|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Hm-m-m... My last 3D model (about 38ft) has about 14-15 tonne displacement and I am thinking about increasing it. It less problem on bigger boat - it has more load capacity. Smaller boat needs more careful weight estimate. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > About 14 metric tons but nothing is final with the keel arrangement > which could be anything..... I haven't done any weight calculations but > the design is intended to be done out of aluminum so on the light side. > It is easy to increase the displacement a bit with the transform > function of the program. > > Paul | 25276|25244|2011-02-05 06:45:44|martin demers|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|It is an old design from the '50s, the first hulls sold were made in Germany then finished in Ontario. I doubt anyone would bother to make trouble about using some old plans. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 02:35:02 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization Thanks, Martin. Now I know whom to ask if I want to take a look at it. I will not use it, because it is probably under copyright law. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > unfortunately I dont, > I got some paper plans that came with the boat when I bought it, they are those of a similar boat model(canadian northern 35 sold by C&C before they went to fiberglass boats) but are not my sailboat exact plans. > > Martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25277|25244|2011-02-05 18:20:43|wild_explorer|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|Matt, That what I am trying to figure out by myself. Still working on test-models. For now: Flat plate has Zero numbers. Twisted 180deg (one side fixed) plate - has the same Zero. Twisted 180 deg plate should have a lot of stress, but does not affect GS numbers. In contrast, even slight pointed force to flat plate make it redish and change GS numbers. Example #5 was created with 11 points (x2). To compare - box has 8 points (x2). Box supposed to have Zero GS, but it will not. It has colors at the corners. So, this GS could be used to estimate shape-form difference. P.S. I will keep you updated over e-mail when I am done with test-models. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > Origami_and_Guassian_curvature_visualization.pdf > > > Also, I am a little unclear on the definition of Gauss curvature in this visualization. Are the orientation of the axes that the curvature is calculated on chosen for the maximum value ? After all, z = x * y is flat on both the x and y axes, but +/- 45 axes one gets the maximum saddle point effect and choosing those axes would give the largest magnitude of curvature. > > Matt | 25278|25244|2011-02-05 18:31:19|wild_explorer|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|Correction about pointed force. Plate is freely supported at all 4 sides (let say close to the edges). --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Matt, > > In contrast, even slight pointed force to flat plate make it redish and change GS numbers. > | 25279|25279|2011-02-05 19:12:58|Mark Hamill|zinc attachment|I have been hearing conflicting opinions about the effectiveness of welding and bolting on zincs--any thoughts?? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25280|25279|2011-02-05 21:18:05|Johnson|Re: zinc attachment|I'm going to bolt mine using SS bolts thru tapped holes and electrician's contact paste. I thickened the hull (at the zinc locations) to 3/4" to give more contact in the threads. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > I have been hearing conflicting opinions about the effectiveness of welding and bolting on zincs--any thoughts?? > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25281|25244|2011-02-05 21:20:41|Matt Malone|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|>That what I am trying to figure out by myself. Still working on test-models. For now: Flat plate has Zero numbers. >Twisted 180deg (one side fixed) plate - has the same Zero. Twisted 180 deg plate should have a >lot of stress, but does not affect GS numbers. Wild, it sounds to me like the program is not calculating Gauss curvatures the way I would like to to measure fairness. Does a plate twisted only 10-20 degrees still give zero curvature ? Matt Matt Malone, M.A.Sc. P.Eng Forensic Engineer R.J. Shirer & Associates 2601 Matheson Blvd. East, Unit 31 Mississauga, ON L4W 5A8 Phone: 905-290-1503 Fax: 905-290-1504 Email: matt@... Mobile: 416-570-3501 Web: www.rjshirer.com This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify R.J. Shirer & Associates Inc. immediately by email at matt@.... Thank you. `Nice? It's the ONLY thing,' said the Water Rat solemnly, as he leant forward for his stroke. `Believe me, my young friend, there is NOTHING--absolute nothing--half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats. Simply messing,' he went on dreamily: `messing--about--in--boats; messing----' - Water Rat to Mole, Wind in the Willows, Kenneth Grahame It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every furneral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping onto the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off - then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball. - Ishmael, Moby Dick, Herman Melville. A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in. - Greek Proverb Johnny Cash, he's like President Lincoln or somethin'. I was in the prison band when I first saw him in San Quentin, I was impressed with his ability to take five thousand convicts and steal the show away from a bunch of strippers. That's pretty hard to do. - Merle Haggard Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. - Abraham Lincoln Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall. - Confucius Dr. Venkman, we believe that the purpose of science is to serve mankind. You, however, seem to regard science as some kind of dodge or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy and your conclusions are highly questionable. You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman. - Dean Yager, Ghostbusters, 1984 What gets us in trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so. - Mark Twain I must down to the seas again, to the lonely sea and the sky, And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by, And the wheel's kick and the wind's song and the white sail's shaking, And a grey mist on the sea's face, and a grey dawn breaking. I must down to the seas again, for the call of the running tide Is a wild call and a clear call that may not be denied; And all I ask is a windy day with the white clouds flying, And the flung spray and the blown spume, and the sea-gulls crying. I must down to the seas again, to the vagrant gypsy life, To the gull's way and the whale's way where the wind's like a whetted knife; And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick's over. - Sea-Fever, John Masefield To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 23:20:34 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization Matt, That what I am trying to figure out by myself. Still working on test-models. For now: Flat plate has Zero numbers. Twisted 180deg (one side fixed) plate - has the same Zero. Twisted 180 deg plate should have a lot of stress, but does not affect GS numbers. In contrast, even slight pointed force to flat plate make it redish and change GS numbers. Example #5 was created with 11 points (x2). To compare - box has 8 points (x2). Box supposed to have Zero GS, but it will not. It has colors at the corners. So, this GS could be used to estimate shape-form difference. P.S. I will keep you updated over e-mail when I am done with test-models. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > Origami_and_Guassian_curvature_visualization.pdf > > > Also, I am a little unclear on the definition of Gauss curvature in this visualization. Are the orientation of the axes that the curvature is calculated on chosen for the maximum value ? After all, z = x * y is flat on both the x and y axes, but +/- 45 axes one gets the maximum saddle point effect and choosing those axes would give the largest magnitude of curvature. > > Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25282|25279|2011-02-05 22:17:39|Ben Okopnik|Re: zinc attachment|On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 04:13:00PM -0800, Mark Hamill wrote: > I have been hearing conflicting opinions about the effectiveness of > welding and bolting on zincs--any thoughts?? Until about 5 years ago, I'd always used bolt-on zincs - the largest ones I could find. I had to keep replacing them every couple of years, and sometimes more often than that. Then, I welded 4 10-lb zincs onto the hull and 2 onto the rudder. Judging by the rate of their deterioration, they'll last roughly another 15 years. The thing that I find interesting is that the only bolt-on zinc that I still have on the boat - the one on the prop shaft - stopped deteriorating as soon as I welded these on, and I haven't had to replace it either. It seems like I've managed to totally passivate the boat with that amount of protection. That'll save me a few haulouts over the life of the boat. I'm a big fan of using commercial equipment whenever possible anyway - and this is one of those places where our "little pleasure boats" can do so (these zincs are what all the fishing boats in that area of Florida were using.) That stuff _has_ to work - unlike what they sell at West Marine, where it just has to look pretty and "yachty". 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| 25283|25279|2011-02-06 12:13:19|Mark Hamill|Re: zinc attachment|Ben: Where did you weld them on the rudder and hull?? Thanks, MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25284|25279|2011-02-06 13:04:02|Ben Okopnik|Re: zinc attachment|On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 09:13:31AM -0800, Mark Hamill wrote: > Ben: Where did you weld them on the rudder and hull?? Thanks, MarkH Spaced more-or-less evenly along the length of the hull starting at about 10' back from the bow and about half-way between the turn of the bilge and the keel. Just grind a pair of strips out of the paint, weld'em down, and carefully repaint around the tabs, especially the area between the tab and the zinc. It would have been nice if they'd made the tabs stand, say, 2" away from the zinc - the painting would have been a bit easier. Actually, I saw slightly different zincs a couple of years ago - they used a pair of tabs on each end instead of a sinle one, spaced about that much off - that would have been perfect. But that's just a minor nitpick. 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| 25285|25279|2011-02-06 13:36:56|Mark Hamill|Re: zinc attachment|Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. All the best, MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25286|25279|2011-02-06 13:59:23|Ben Okopnik|Re: zinc attachment|On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:37:01AM -0800, Mark Hamill wrote: > Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same > level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. Yep. It's not like I've come up with some brilliant formula here, though - it's just a rough approximation for putting the max galvanic protection near the center of the mass in the water, plus a bit extra near the places that need it the most (i.e., the prop shaft and prop fall under the "dissimilar metals" heading, and so need a bit more protection.) 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| 25287|25279|2011-02-06 15:13:17|Paul Wilson|Re: zinc attachment|I would use bolts to attach zincs if you think you will want to remove or replace them in the water. Mine are attached using bolts and then a small weld tack on the nut of the bolt makes sure the zinc is electrically bonded. If I wish to remove the zinc, I can just file the bit of weld off without doing too much damage to the threads of the bolt. Cheers, Paul On 2/7/2011 7:59 AM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:37:01AM -0800, Mark Hamill wrote: > > Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same > > level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. > > Yep. It's not like I've come up with some brilliant formula here, though > - it's just a rough approximation for putting the max galvanic > protection near the center of the mass in the water, plus a bit extra > near the places that need it the most (i.e., the prop shaft and prop > fall under the "dissimilar metals" heading, and so need a bit more > protection.) > > 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 > > | 25288|25015|2011-02-06 15:22:08|Paul Wilson|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|I have always liked the look of the Van de Stadt Samoa 47. It is about the same displacement as my design when done in alloy and it has many frames and stringers. Hopfully Origami will be lighter, as well as simpler. As I said, I haven't crunched the numbers. I may have to add a few tons. Paul http://www.stadtdesign.com/designs/stock_plans_sail/samoa_47/1 On 2/5/2011 5:40 PM, wild_explorer wrote: > > Hm-m-m... My last 3D model (about 38ft) has about 14-15 tonne > displacement and I am thinking about increasing it. It less problem on > bigger boat - it has more load capacity. Smaller boat needs more > careful weight estimate. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > About 14 metric tons but nothing is final with the keel arrangement > > which could be anything..... I haven't done any weight calculations but > > the design is intended to be done out of aluminum so on the light side. > > It is easy to increase the displacement a bit with the transform > > function of the program. > > > > Paul > > | 25289|25279|2011-02-06 23:15:57|Gord Schnell|Re: zinc attachment|Just trying to visualize the bolt thru the zinc and the nut...does this mean the nut is tack welded to the hull and then the bolt passes thru the zinc and screws ito the nut? Gord On 2011-02-06, at 12:13 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > I would use bolts to attach zincs if you think you will want to remove > or replace them in the water. Mine are attached using bolts and then a > small weld tack on the nut of the bolt makes sure the zinc is > electrically bonded. If I wish to remove the zinc, I can just file the > bit of weld off without doing too much damage to the threads of the bolt. > > Cheers, Paul > > On 2/7/2011 7:59 AM, Ben Okopnik wrote: >> >> On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:37:01AM -0800, Mark Hamill wrote: >>> Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same >>> level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. >> >> Yep. It's not like I've come up with some brilliant formula here, though >> - it's just a rough approximation for putting the max galvanic >> protection near the center of the mass in the water, plus a bit extra >> near the places that need it the most (i.e., the prop shaft and prop >> fall under the "dissimilar metals" heading, and so need a bit more >> protection.) >> >> 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 > > > | 25290|25279|2011-02-06 23:25:03|Paul Wilson|Re: zinc attachment|No, the two 1/2 inch bolts are welded to the hull via the head with the threads sticking out. I drill two holes in the metal tangs for the zinc so the zinc mechanically bolts onto the hull. The small tacks welded on the nut from the nut to the zinc and from the nut to the bolt thread is for electrical bonding only. Cheers, Paul On 2/7/2011 5:15 PM, Gord Schnell wrote: > > Just trying to visualize the bolt thru the zinc and the nut...does > this mean the nut is tack welded to the hull and then the bolt passes > thru the zinc and screws ito the nut? > Gord > On 2011-02-06, at 12:13 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > I would use bolts to attach zincs if you think you will want to remove > > or replace them in the water. Mine are attached using bolts and then a > > small weld tack on the nut of the bolt makes sure the zinc is > > electrically bonded. If I wish to remove the zinc, I can just file the > > bit of weld off without doing too much damage to the threads of the > bolt. > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > On 2/7/2011 7:59 AM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:37:01AM -0800, Mark Hamill wrote: > >>> Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same > >>> level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. > >> > >> Yep. It's not like I've come up with some brilliant formula here, > though > >> - it's just a rough approximation for putting the max galvanic > >> protection near the center of the mass in the water, plus a bit extra > >> near the places that need it the most (i.e., the prop shaft and prop > >> fall under the "dissimilar metals" heading, and so need a bit more > >> protection.) > >> > >> 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 > > > > > > > > | 25291|25279|2011-02-06 23:28:31|Gord Schnell|Re: zinc attachment|Got it! Thanks Paul. I have the bolts welded to the hull but I may need ti add more mounts for more zincs. Gord On 2011-02-06, at 8:25 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > No, the two 1/2 inch bolts are welded to the hull via the head with the > threads sticking out. I drill two holes in the metal tangs for the zinc > so the zinc mechanically bolts onto the hull. The small tacks welded on > the nut from the nut to the zinc and from the nut to the bolt thread is > for electrical bonding only. > > Cheers, Paul > > > > On 2/7/2011 5:15 PM, Gord Schnell wrote: >> >> Just trying to visualize the bolt thru the zinc and the nut...does >> this mean the nut is tack welded to the hull and then the bolt passes >> thru the zinc and screws ito the nut? >> Gord >> On 2011-02-06, at 12:13 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: >> >>> I would use bolts to attach zincs if you think you will want to remove >>> or replace them in the water. Mine are attached using bolts and then a >>> small weld tack on the nut of the bolt makes sure the zinc is >>> electrically bonded. If I wish to remove the zinc, I can just file the >>> bit of weld off without doing too much damage to the threads of the >> bolt. >>> >>> Cheers, Paul >>> >>> On 2/7/2011 7:59 AM, Ben Okopnik wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 10:37:01AM -0800, Mark Hamill wrote: >>>>> Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same >>>>> level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. >>>> >>>> Yep. It's not like I've come up with some brilliant formula here, >> though >>>> - it's just a rough approximation for putting the max galvanic >>>> protection near the center of the mass in the water, plus a bit extra >>>> near the places that need it the most (i.e., the prop shaft and prop >>>> fall under the "dissimilar metals" heading, and so need a bit more >>>> protection.) >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 25292|25292|2011-02-07 04:39:00|Richard Payne|Anode attachment|Just weld the straps from the anodes direct to the steel hull. No need to paint the weld area as the zinc will protect it. This will give you total electrical continuity, which is essential. Have been doing thsi for 20 yrs no problems. Regards, Richard. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25293|25292|2011-02-07 11:34:36|Ben Okopnik|Re: Anode attachment|On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 09:08:51PM +1130, Richard Payne wrote: > Just weld the straps from the anodes direct to the steel hull. No need to > paint the weld area as the zinc will protect it. Zincs protect your boat from galvanic interaction, not from rust. You most definitely do need to paint the weld area - and rather carefully, too, since you need to cover the area under the tabs but must not get paint on the zincs themselves. 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| 25294|25292|2011-02-07 11:57:19|Aaron Williams|Re: Anode attachment|Ben  Rust is caused from galvanic corrosion, Although I would think the anode would dissolve at a much higher rate without the paint.   Aaron ________________________________ From: Ben Okopnik To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, February 7, 2011 7:34:23 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Anode attachment   On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 09:08:51PM +1130, Richard Payne wrote: > Just weld the straps from the anodes direct to the steel hull. No need to > paint the weld area as the zinc will protect it. Zincs protect your boat from galvanic interaction, not from rust. You most definitely do need to paint the weld area - and rather carefully, too, since you need to cover the area under the tabs but must not get paint on the zincs themselves. 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 Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2) Recent Activity: * New Members 3 * New Files 7 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] | 25295|25292|2011-02-07 13:08:16|Ben Okopnik|Re: Anode attachment|On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 08:56:11AM -0800, Aaron Williams wrote: > Ben >  Rust is caused from galvanic corrosion Aaron - that's one of the methods by which rust occurs, but it's not the only one. I mean, you don't really believe that having a piece of zinc near unpainted steel would prevent it from rusting in salt water, right? If that was so, we'd just all weld on a bunch of zincs here and there on the hull and not bother with painting at all. It *would* be much cheaper and easier and more convenient, though... :) 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| 25296|24571|2011-02-07 13:32:22|Gord Schnell|Re: Shim stock model|Walter I just found this message in my "Drafts" folder as I was "tidying up" prior to imaging my drive and transferring it to a larger one....outa space again!! 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] | 25297|25244|2011-02-07 14:04:31|wild_explorer|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|I forgot that there is one more option which shows stress and error of plate face. According to that one, model of the plate twisted 180 deg is not really executable option (regardless of GC=0). Trying to figure out how to combine these to options. Plate with 10-20 deg twist is OK --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > Wild, it sounds to me like the program is not calculating Gauss curvatures the way I would like to to measure fairness. Does a plate twisted only 10-20 degrees still give zero curvature ? > > Matt | 25298|25292|2011-02-07 14:25:07|Aaron Williams|Re: Anode attachment|Ben Aaron - that's one of the methods by which rust occurs, but it's not the only one. I mean, you don't really believe that having a piece of zinc near unpainted steel would prevent it from rusting in salt water, right?     Of course not. The anode would slow the process down for a short time on a limited surface area. My understanding of corrosion and coatings:  To make the area small enough that the anode can protect the steel you apply a coating, Primer and top coat to seal the surface of the steel so that the anode is only required to protect the porous  area or holidays in the coating and or the expossed areas due to usage. If that was so, we'd just all weld on a bunch of zincs here and there on the hull and not bother with painting at all. It *would* be much cheaper and easier and more convenient, though... :) I believe the weight of the anodes that would be required would sink my boat. Aaron [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25299|25292|2011-02-07 14:43:57|Ben Okopnik|Re: Anode attachment|On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:25:05AM -0800, Aaron Williams wrote: > Ben > Aaron - that's one of the methods by which rust occurs, but it's not the > only one. I mean, you don't really believe that having a piece of zinc > near unpainted steel would prevent it from rusting in salt water, right? > >     Of course not. The anode would slow the process down for a short time on a > limited surface area. > My understanding of corrosion and coatings: >  To make the area small enough that the anode can protect the steel you apply a > coating, Primer and top coat to seal the surface of the steel so that the anode > is only required to protect the porous  area or holidays in the coating and or > the expossed areas due to usage. I'd never considered that effect, since it's a relatively minor one, but you're right - and every little bit helps. The paint is, of course, still the primary means of protection overall. > If that was so, we'd just all weld on a bunch of zincs here and there on > the hull and not bother with painting at all. It *would* be much cheaper > and easier and more convenient, though... :) > > I believe the weight of the anodes that would be required would sink my boat. [laugh] If you were shooting for that kind of an area effect, it might be better to just build the entire hull out of SS and be done with it. Given the numbers for the relative hull cost being tossed around (from 10% to 33% of the entire cost of building a boat), that might not be such an awful idea, anyway... 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| 25300|25292|2011-02-07 14:56:56|mauro gonzaga|Re: Anode attachment|Not much to laugh. You may consider to built the hull in SA-240 Gr. 316 the underwater portion and Gr. 304 the portion above the water. SS costs about 2 USD for 1 pound of st.steel. However you should paint the underwater for applying antifouling. Special grit and special paint, then the antifouling. Mauro > [laugh] If you were shooting for that kind of an area > effect, it might > be better to just build the entire hull out of SS and be > done with it. > Given the numbers for the relative hull cost being tossed > around (from > 10% to 33% of the entire cost of building a boat), that > might not be > such an awful idea, anyway... > > > 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 > > >     origamiboats-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > > | 25301|25292|2011-02-07 15:53:05|Aaron Williams|Re: Anode attachment|I wonder if the origami design would alleviate most of the work hardening issues associated with the SS hulls that have been built.  Aaron ________________________________ From: mauro gonzaga To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, February 7, 2011 10:56:48 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Anode attachment   Not much to laugh. You may consider to built the hull in SA-240 Gr. 316 the underwater portion and Gr. 304 the portion above the water. SS costs about 2 USD for 1 pound of st.steel. However you should paint the underwater for applying antifouling. Special grit and special paint, then the antifouling. Mauro > [laugh] If you were shooting for that kind of an area > effect, it might > be better to just build the entire hull out of SS and be > done with it. > Given the numbers for the relative hull cost being tossed > around (from > 10% to 33% of the entire cost of building a boat), that > might not be > such an awful idea, anyway... > > > 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 > > >     origamiboats-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25302|25292|2011-02-07 16:56:32|William Munger|Re: Anode attachment|It would be interesting if you could build a hull using Stainless steel and then etch (by chemical or laser maybe) a Shark Skin type of layer into the surface. http://www.sharkskincoating.com/newse.asp?newsid=223 No painting needed or rust to deal with, and to clean it off just use it. Oh for a perfect boat :-) William On 2/7/11 2:43 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:25:05AM -0800, Aaron Williams wrote: >> Ben >> Aaron - that's one of the methods by which rust occurs, but it's not the >> only one. I mean, you don't really believe that having a piece of zinc >> near unpainted steel would prevent it from rusting in salt water, right? >> >> Of course not. The anode would slow the process down for a short time on a >> limited surface area. >> My understanding of corrosion and coatings: >> To make the area small enough that the anode can protect the steel you apply a >> coating, Primer and top coat to seal the surface of the steel so that the anode >> is only required to protect the porous area or holidays in the coating and or >> the expossed areas due to usage. > I'd never considered that effect, since it's a relatively minor one, but > you're right - and every little bit helps. The paint is, of course, > still the primary means of protection overall. > >> If that was so, we'd just all weld on a bunch of zincs here and there on >> the hull and not bother with painting at all. It *would* be much cheaper >> and easier and more convenient, though... :) >> >> I believe the weight of the anodes that would be required would sink my boat. > [laugh] If you were shooting for that kind of an area effect, it might > be better to just build the entire hull out of SS and be done with it. > Given the numbers for the relative hull cost being tossed around (from > 10% to 33% of the entire cost of building a boat), that might not be > such an awful idea, anyway... > > > Ben | 25303|24571|2011-02-08 07:07:38|boatwayupnorth|Re: Shim stock model|Hi Gord, you did send this before, but thanks anyway. I will definitely incorporate your lifting device if I ever come that far. Keep us posted when you put "With Amazing Grace" in the water. You know: Does she float? Right side up? And pictures of the big moment, of course. Cheers Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > Walter > I just found this message in my "Drafts" folder as I was "tidying up" prior to imaging my drive and transferring it to a larger one....outa space again!! > 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] > | 25304|24571|2011-02-08 11:44:16|Gord Schnell|Re: Shim stock model|Walter I'm in the midst of rebuilding my dual-boot MAC/Win system. Cleaning up etc and found the unsent message. Thought I probably hadn't sent it. Will keep you all posted. Gord On 2011-02-08, at 4:07 AM, boatwayupnorth wrote: > > > Hi Gord, > you did send this before, but thanks anyway. I will definitely incorporate your lifting device if I ever come that far. > Keep us posted when you put "With Amazing Grace" in the water. You know: Does she float? Right side up? And pictures of the big moment, of course. > Cheers > Walter > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > > > Walter > > I just found this message in my "Drafts" folder as I was "tidying up" prior to imaging my drive and transferring it to a larger one....outa space again!! > > 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] | 25305|25305|2011-02-08 15:49:37|wild_explorer|Tall ship made from steel|I had a chance to talk to the captain of tall ship "Lady Washington" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Washington which is in our area together with tall ship "Hawaiian Chieftain" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_Chieftain http://www.flickr.com/photos/fromjaysdesk/5348844084/ "Lady Washington"'s hull made from wood and require continuous maintenance according to captain. But does look very nice (historically). "Hawaiian Chieftain"'s hull is made from steel. Hull requires mostly just painting as a maintenance. Exhaust pipe from the engine goes through front mast and comes out trough spreaders to keep a look (and smoke from the deck). Both ships were launched around the same time, but one with steel hull looks like new, with wood hull - has pretty old look.| 25306|25292|2011-02-09 18:01:06|brentswain38|Re: Anode attachment|Marcel Bardiaux had a boat made of stainless. He said it ate anodes as quickly as he could put them on,then had other major problems. He said it was a big mistake. The French have had good success with stainless from the decks up. Copper nickle has worked well for some boats, but it's extremely expensive . Steel hulls are so maintenance free, when done properly, that there is no justification for going for something so expensive. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, William Munger wrote: > > It would be interesting if you could build a hull using Stainless steel > and then etch (by chemical or laser maybe) a Shark Skin type of layer > into the surface. > http://www.sharkskincoating.com/newse.asp?newsid=223 > > No painting needed or rust to deal with, and to clean it off just use > it. Oh for a perfect boat :-) > > William > > > On 2/7/11 2:43 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:25:05AM -0800, Aaron Williams wrote: > >> Ben > >> Aaron - that's one of the methods by which rust occurs, but it's not the > >> only one. I mean, you don't really believe that having a piece of zinc > >> near unpainted steel would prevent it from rusting in salt water, right? > >> > >> Of course not. The anode would slow the process down for a short time on a > >> limited surface area. > >> My understanding of corrosion and coatings: > >> To make the area small enough that the anode can protect the steel you apply a > >> coating, Primer and top coat to seal the surface of the steel so that the anode > >> is only required to protect the porous area or holidays in the coating and or > >> the expossed areas due to usage. > > I'd never considered that effect, since it's a relatively minor one, but > > you're right - and every little bit helps. The paint is, of course, > > still the primary means of protection overall. > > > >> If that was so, we'd just all weld on a bunch of zincs here and there on > >> the hull and not bother with painting at all. It *would* be much cheaper > >> and easier and more convenient, though... :) > >> > >> I believe the weight of the anodes that would be required would sink my boat. > > [laugh] If you were shooting for that kind of an area effect, it might > > be better to just build the entire hull out of SS and be done with it. > > Given the numbers for the relative hull cost being tossed around (from > > 10% to 33% of the entire cost of building a boat), that might not be > > such an awful idea, anyway... > > > > > > Ben > | 25307|25279|2011-02-09 18:06:06|brentswain38|Re: zinc attachment|Jack, doing a circumnavigation on a 36 said he had a zinc bolted to his rudder which did nothing. Another friend had major corrosion problems with bolted on zincs. He welded them on and had no further problems. It takes only slight corrosion around the bolt hole to electrically insulate the zinc from the hull. One solution, when you don't have welder nearby , is to put some stainless weld, in advance around the bolt hole in the strap, and use welded on stainless bolts. That way the contact is stainless on stainless. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > I have been hearing conflicting opinions about the effectiveness of welding and bolting on zincs--any thoughts?? > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25308|25279|2011-02-09 18:08:13|brentswain38|Re: zinc attachment|I usually put one Z3 centred on the bottom of the rudder and one each side of the keel- skeg plate. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. All the best, MarkH > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25309|25244|2011-02-09 18:11:16|brentswain38|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|I noticed that ABS rules don't take into account the huge effect of curvature on stiffness, making them totally meaningless on well curved hulls, such as sailing hulls. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > I forgot that there is one more option which shows stress and error of plate face. According to that one, model of the plate twisted 180 deg is not really executable option (regardless of GC=0). Trying to figure out how to combine these to options. > > Plate with 10-20 deg twist is OK > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > Wild, it sounds to me like the program is not calculating Gauss curvatures the way I would like to to measure fairness. Does a plate twisted only 10-20 degrees still give zero curvature ? > > > > Matt > | 25310|25015|2011-02-09 18:13:57|brentswain38|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|A couple of very successful origami 55 footers were built in Port Hardy BC , using 3/8th inch 5086 aluminium . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > I have always liked the look of the Van de Stadt Samoa 47. It is about > the same displacement as my design when done in alloy and it has many > frames and stringers. Hopfully Origami will be lighter, as well as > simpler. As I said, I haven't crunched the numbers. I may have to add a > few tons. Paul > > http://www.stadtdesign.com/designs/stock_plans_sail/samoa_47/1 > > On 2/5/2011 5:40 PM, wild_explorer wrote: > > > > Hm-m-m... My last 3D model (about 38ft) has about 14-15 tonne > > displacement and I am thinking about increasing it. It less problem on > > bigger boat - it has more load capacity. Smaller boat needs more > > careful weight estimate. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > , Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > > > About 14 metric tons but nothing is final with the keel arrangement > > > which could be anything..... I haven't done any weight calculations but > > > the design is intended to be done out of aluminum so on the light side. > > > It is easy to increase the displacement a bit with the transform > > > function of the program. > > > > > > Paul > > > > > | 25311|25244|2011-02-09 18:24:54|brentswain38|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|The first origami 36 I did t-boned a steel barge at hull speed. Zero damage, then hit a log boom at 12 knots , zero damage again, then pounded for 16 days on a Baja lee shore in 8 to 12 foot surf,and was dragged off thru 8to 12 foot surf, still no serious damage. Another pounded for 300 yards across a Fijian coral ref in big surf and was pulled of the reef thru the same surf, no serious damage. She later hit a freighter in Gibralter in fog, again no serious damage. So the tests have already been done. How long would a " approved " fibreglass hull have done in those conditions. This makes approval of a boat which have survived the above, by organizations which approve stock fibreglas boats,moot points. There will always be ludite skeptics. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > what I meant is if we (or someone) would like to know how far the BS design could be pushed before it starts to have sign of failure. > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: williswildest@... > Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 19:37:28 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Satisfactory service experience" for Brent's design is about 30 years or so. > > > > If such option is acceptable by ABS (as for most old designs which were done without engineering data backup at that time), why is not it good for skeptics? No need to go into an extreme ;)) > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > we would need a volunteer to travel the world with a BS boat and park the boat in every huracanes, tornados and cyclones anounce and against reef, > > > and do a report after the boat have encounter a few dozens of those > > > that would be a good test to convince scecptics. > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25312|25244|2011-02-09 21:05:07|arctichusky44|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|First off, I think Brent should include a primer in navigation and safe watchkeeping with his book with all these collisions and groundings.Again this is just word of mouth and of course the numbers keep changing and getting bigger or smaller as needed. I think Brent needs to come clean on something and that is that one of the 36'ers never came off the Baja beach. It got thoroughly smashed until the keel hinged off then it filled with sand. Its still there! Another one of the hulls had some serious cracking under the engine bed where the stringers were welded to the hull. I saw the water seeping in myself. THESE are facts. regards ,Frank--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > The first origami 36 I did t-boned a steel barge at hull speed. Zero damage, then hit a log boom at 12 knots , zero damage again, then pounded for 16 days on a Baja lee shore in 8 to 12 foot surf,and was dragged off thru 8to 12 foot surf, still no serious damage. > Another pounded for 300 yards across a Fijian coral ref in big surf and was pulled of the reef thru the same surf, no serious damage. She later hit a freighter in Gibralter in fog, again no serious damage. So the tests have already been done. How long would a " approved " fibreglass hull have done in those conditions. This makes approval of a boat which have survived the above, by organizations which approve stock fibreglas boats,moot points. > There will always be ludite skeptics. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > what I meant is if we (or someone) would like to know how far the BS design could be pushed before it starts to have sign of failure. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: williswildest@ > > Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 19:37:28 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Satisfactory service experience" for Brent's design is about 30 years or so. > > > > > > > > If such option is acceptable by ABS (as for most old designs which were done without engineering data backup at that time), why is not it good for skeptics? No need to go into an extreme ;)) > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we would need a volunteer to travel the world with a BS boat and park the boat in every huracanes, tornados and cyclones anounce and against reef, > > > > > and do a report after the boat have encounter a few dozens of those > > > > > that would be a good test to convince scecptics. > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 25313|25244|2011-02-09 23:25:13|wild_explorer|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|ABS does not take into an account effect of the shape on small sailboat. And this is justifiable by ABS (or any other marine standard). All scantling rules came from boat/ships with service records. Failures were analyzed, improvements made, rules created. ABS will accept different scantling rules on case_to_case basis - means "design with service records" OR "supported by engineering data/calculations for new design" --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I noticed that ABS rules don't take into account the huge effect of curvature on stiffness, making them totally meaningless on well curved hulls, such as sailing hulls. > | 25314|25244|2011-02-09 23:45:46|wild_explorer|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|Frank, As a reader of the group, I am interested in good examples as well as failures. But, Frank, you need to make yourself clear as well. You are NOT telling "facts". You are telling "stories". You saw the hull? Pictures with a date please ;) You saw it again, still there? Pictures! Did you actually see how it got there? At least that hull is on the beach, not on the bottom of the sea. Crack under the engine's bead leaking? Pictures? Did you advise the owner to do repair right away? Or did owner said "I am sailing anyway!" Were it latest or earlier designs? And I am not picking on you Frank. All information is appreciated. This is normal process of design evolution. If there are some problems, it need to be fixed. As I remember, these examples were brought up before, and Brent explained how he fixed it. That what I am interested in. What was the problem, what was the solution. On other hand... Most of the boat are DIY. Some people think that if they put more frames, boat will be more reliable. It could be quite opposite for "origami" hull. The same with HOW the frames and reinforcement are done. Etc, etc, etc.... --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "arctichusky44" wrote: > > First off, I think Brent should include a primer in navigation and safe watchkeeping with his book with all these collisions and groundings.Again this is just word of mouth and of course the numbers keep changing and getting bigger or smaller as needed. I think Brent needs to come clean on something and that is that one of the 36'ers never came off the Baja beach. It got thoroughly smashed until the keel hinged off then it filled with sand. Its still there! Another one of the hulls had some serious cracking under the engine bed where the stringers were welded to the hull. I saw the water seeping in myself. THESE are facts. regards ,Frank | 25315|25244|2011-02-10 00:02:52|Paul Wilson|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|What were the names of these boats? I could be wrong but I think one was Mongo and it actually grounded twice. The first time it was saved but he then grounded it again. Godfrey is an incredibly talented artist and has interests other than navigation :). Amazing stuff: http://www.godfreystephens.com/Site/Carvings_%26_Sculptures.html Cheers, Paul On 2/10/2011 3:05 PM, arctichusky44 wrote: > > First off, I think Brent should include a primer in navigation and > safe watchkeeping with his book with all these collisions and > groundings.Again this is just word of mouth and of course the numbers > keep changing and getting bigger or smaller as needed. I think Brent > needs to come clean on something and that is that one of the 36'ers > never came off the Baja beach. It got thoroughly smashed until the > keel hinged off then it filled with sand. Its still there! Another one > of the hulls had some serious cracking under the engine bed where the > stringers were welded to the hull. I saw the water seeping in myself. > THESE are facts. regards ,Frank--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "brentswain38" > wrote: > > > > The first origami 36 I did t-boned a steel barge at hull speed. Zero > damage, then hit a log boom at 12 knots , zero damage again, then > pounded for 16 days on a Baja lee shore in 8 to 12 foot surf,and was > dragged off thru 8to 12 foot surf, still no serious damage. > > Another pounded for 300 yards across a Fijian coral ref in big surf > and was pulled of the reef thru the same surf, no serious damage. She > later hit a freighter in Gibralter in fog, again no serious damage. So > the tests have already been done. How long would a " approved " > fibreglass hull have done in those conditions. This makes approval of > a boat which have survived the above, by organizations which approve > stock fibreglas boats,moot points. > > There will always be ludite skeptics. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , martin demers > wrote: > > > > > > > > > what I meant is if we (or someone) would like to know how far the > BS design could be pushed before it starts to have sign of failure. > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: williswildest@ > > > Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 19:37:28 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS > for test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Satisfactory service experience" for Brent's design is about 30 > years or so. > > > > > > > > > > > > If such option is acceptable by ABS (as for most old designs which > were done without engineering data backup at that time), why is not it > good for skeptics? No need to go into an extreme ;)) > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , martin demers > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we would need a volunteer to travel the world with a BS boat and > park the boat in every huracanes, tornados and cyclones anounce and > against reef, > > > > > > > and do a report after the boat have encounter a few dozens of those > > > > > > > that would be a good test to convince scecptics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > | 25316|25316|2011-02-10 07:12:26|Johnson|North Vancouver Moorage Available|If anyone is interested in a 40' slip in Deep Cove for a year send me an email. It's available April 1.| 25317|25292|2011-02-10 07:22:40|Wally Paine|Re: Anode attachment|There was a Cupro Nickle boat, about a 30 footer,  in Faversham Creek (Kent UK) a while back. Bare metal and dark green. I was told it had been designed, built and owned by the chap who lead the design team for the Mulberry harbours used for the D-day landings.  Wally Paine --- On Wed, 9/2/11, brentswain38 wrote: From: brentswain38 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Anode attachment To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, 9 February, 2011, 23:01   Marcel Bardiaux had a boat made of stainless. He said it ate anodes as quickly as he could put them on,then had other major problems. He said it was a big mistake. The French have had good success with stainless from the decks up. Copper nickle has worked well for some boats, but it's extremely expensive . Steel hulls are so maintenance free, when done properly, that there is no justification for going for something so expensive. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, William Munger wrote: > > It would be interesting if you could build a hull using Stainless steel > and then etch (by chemical or laser maybe) a Shark Skin type of layer > into the surface. > http://www.sharkskincoating.com/newse.asp?newsid=223 > > No painting needed or rust to deal with, and to clean it off just use > it. Oh for a perfect boat :-) > > William > > > On 2/7/11 2:43 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:25:05AM -0800, Aaron Williams wrote: > >> Ben > >> Aaron - that's one of the methods by which rust occurs, but it's not the > >> only one. I mean, you don't really believe that having a piece of zinc > >> near unpainted steel would prevent it from rusting in salt water, right? > >> > >> Of course not. The anode would slow the process down for a short time on a > >> limited surface area. > >> My understanding of corrosion and coatings: > >> To make the area small enough that the anode can protect the steel you apply a > >> coating, Primer and top coat to seal the surface of the steel so that the anode > >> is only required to protect the porous area or holidays in the coating and or > >> the expossed areas due to usage. > > I'd never considered that effect, since it's a relatively minor one, but > > you're right - and every little bit helps. The paint is, of course, > > still the primary means of protection overall. > > > >> If that was so, we'd just all weld on a bunch of zincs here and there on > >> the hull and not bother with painting at all. It *would* be much cheaper > >> and easier and more convenient, though... :) > >> > >> I believe the weight of the anodes that would be required would sink my boat. > > [laugh] If you were shooting for that kind of an area effect, it might > > be better to just build the entire hull out of SS and be done with it. > > Given the numbers for the relative hull cost being tossed around (from > > 10% to 33% of the entire cost of building a boat), that might not be > > such an awful idea, anyway... > > > > > > Ben > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25318|25244|2011-02-10 15:12:01|Matt Malone|Re: What punishment BS boats have endured|Well, ocean waves breaking onto a shore focuses a lot of power in a small place, and rocks are quite unforgiving. If there are that many stories of BS boats that have encountering hard things, then, it would only seem believable that at least one did not make it out. After all, no boat can be made to withstand being thrown repeatedly onto rocks -- not even rocks can withstand that, that is why there is so much sand. Eventually abrasion alone will make holes in even steel things. I am pretty sure the "whole" story will show that most of the boats that hit something, went on to made it somewhere, had some welding done, and then sailed on. I think most people would tend to be reassured by the exact nature of the "minor damage" (especially those who are welding an entire boat) and then prudently take every effort to stay out of similar circumstances. Navigation and safe watchkeeping... indispensable, in any boat. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: arctichusky44@... Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 02:05:05 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test First off, I think Brent should include a primer in navigation and safe watchkeeping with his book with all these collisions and groundings.Again this is just word of mouth and of course the numbers keep changing and getting bigger or smaller as needed. I think Brent needs to come clean on something and that is that one of the 36'ers never came off the Baja beach. It got thoroughly smashed until the keel hinged off then it filled with sand. Its still there! Another one of the hulls had some serious cracking under the engine bed where the stringers were welded to the hull. I saw the water seeping in myself. THESE are facts. regards ,Frank--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > The first origami 36 I did t-boned a steel barge at hull speed. Zero damage, then hit a log boom at 12 knots , zero damage again, then pounded for 16 days on a Baja lee shore in 8 to 12 foot surf,and was dragged off thru 8to 12 foot surf, still no serious damage. > Another pounded for 300 yards across a Fijian coral ref in big surf and was pulled of the reef thru the same surf, no serious damage. She later hit a freighter in Gibralter in fog, again no serious damage. So the tests have already been done. How long would a " approved " fibreglass hull have done in those conditions. This makes approval of a boat which have survived the above, by organizations which approve stock fibreglas boats,moot points. > There will always be ludite skeptics. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > what I meant is if we (or someone) would like to know how far the BS design could be pushed before it starts to have sign of failure. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: williswildest@ > > Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 19:37:28 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Satisfactory service experience" for Brent's design is about 30 years or so. > > > > > > > > If such option is acceptable by ABS (as for most old designs which were done without engineering data backup at that time), why is not it good for skeptics? No need to go into an extreme ;)) > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we would need a volunteer to travel the world with a BS boat and park the boat in every huracanes, tornados and cyclones anounce and against reef, > > > > > and do a report after the boat have encounter a few dozens of those > > > > > that would be a good test to convince scecptics. > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25319|25244|2011-02-10 16:08:31|arctichusky44|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|Ha ha you are hilarious! As soon as someone mentions an item contrary to the origami philosophy of being infallible and indestructive he is challenged whereas no-one ever questions Brent's sometime's outlandish claims. A major number of the statements made on this site are exactly what you you call them,"stories" and I would tend to wave he b.s. flag on many of them.When you rely on hearsay to formulate a credible opinion of something,the results are oftn less than promised. I am not saying that Brent's boats or the origami method is less or more than what meets the eye but we need a clear an unbiased opinion on the process. What I was trying to point out is that when a statement is made to the group that "there has ever been a case of structural failure,period" then if someone has info contrary to that, it should also be stated. So, I am just telling another of the hundreds of "stories" on here. I also think that the 36 foot origami hulls and smaller are truly great boats. I think when the design exceeds 40 feet, a whole new set of rules apply. Can they be built with a single chine, do you now need to add a way more structural integrity to the fold up plan,are structural bulkheads needed ,etc I know that it is a dreaded word here but at some point some engineering should be done or the whole boat can be a floppy noodle in the water. I remmber a ship I used to work on years ago and it was so poorly designed that it undulated over every wave and once it started to shake fore and aft it had to be slowed down to stop the flopping. It just didn't have enough fore and aft members to give it strength. This is why I think your analysis is good, Wild. Gives some empirical basis to the process. Anyways, have fun with your building or at least the dreams of it. Frank. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Frank, > > As a reader of the group, I am interested in good examples as well as failures. But, Frank, you need to make yourself clear as well. You are NOT telling "facts". You are telling "stories". You saw the hull? Pictures with a date please ;) You saw it again, still there? Pictures! Did you actually see how it got there? At least that hull is on the beach, not on the bottom of the sea. > > Crack under the engine's bead leaking? Pictures? Did you advise the owner to do repair right away? Or did owner said "I am sailing anyway!" > > Were it latest or earlier designs? > > And I am not picking on you Frank. All information is appreciated. > > This is normal process of design evolution. If there are some problems, it need to be fixed. As I remember, these examples were brought up before, and Brent explained how he fixed it. That what I am interested in. What was the problem, what was the solution. > > On other hand... Most of the boat are DIY. Some people think that if they put more frames, boat will be more reliable. It could be quite opposite for "origami" hull. The same with HOW the frames and reinforcement are done. Etc, etc, etc.... > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "arctichusky44" wrote: > > > > First off, I think Brent should include a primer in navigation and safe watchkeeping with his book with all these collisions and groundings.Again this is just word of mouth and of course the numbers keep changing and getting bigger or smaller as needed. I think Brent needs to come clean on something and that is that one of the 36'ers never came off the Baja beach. It got thoroughly smashed until the keel hinged off then it filled with sand. Its still there! Another one of the hulls had some serious cracking under the engine bed where the stringers were welded to the hull. I saw the water seeping in myself. THESE are facts. regards ,Frank > | 25320|25244|2011-02-10 16:23:08|Ben Okopnik|Re: What punishment BS boats have endured|On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 03:11:49PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > I am pretty sure the "whole" story will show that most of the boats > that hit something, went on to made it somewhere, had some welding > done, and then sailed on. > > I think most people would tend to be reassured by the exact nature of > the "minor damage" (especially those who are welding an entire boat) > and then prudently take every effort to stay out of similar > circumstances. Agreed, in detail. I don't think Brent ever claimed that it was impossible to destroy his boats - you could open one right up in just a few minutes with a zipcut wheel. Instead, he mentioned a number of situations that his boats have survived, in which most other boats would have been completely destroyed in minutes. That isn't countered, or in any way affected by Frank's "truth". Actually, I'm not sure what Frank's point was here. "Brent's boats can actually sink! And people can make bad welds!" Um... thanks for the news, Frank. Somehow, I don't think it'll amaze anyone. > Navigation and safe watchkeeping... indispensable, in any boat. This new ship here is fitted according to the reported increase of knowledge among mankind. Namely, she is cumbered end to end, with bells and trumpets and clock and wires... she can call voices out of the air of the waters to con the ship while her crew sleep. But sleep Thou lightly. It has not yet been told to me that the Sea has ceased to be the Sea. -- Rudyard Kipling I do have to say that some Brentboat owners seem to treat them pretty roughly. Dragging them across reefs, t-boning ferries... if they're going to abuse these beautiful boats like that, they should just give them to me instead. :) 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| 25321|25244|2011-02-10 17:38:41|wild_explorer|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|Frank, I agree, that all points of view must be considered. I would like to see success cases as well as failures being documented, with the cause of failures, supported pictures and actions taken for design improvement. All claims need to be reasonably supported. Stories are just stories. It nice to hear them, bit I would like to see the proof. Than we can call it facts. I also agree that "origami" method MAY BE suitable only for small boats (below 45-50ft) or it will need extra reinforcement. I do not know yet. Frank, I am not making fun of you, just would like to see reasonably supported claims (from anyone). Do not take it personally, please. I hate to see when the group start chewing up someone who ask reasonable questions about safety of "origami" design. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "arctichusky44" wrote: > > > What I was trying to point out is that when a statement is made to the group that "there has ever been a case of structural failure,period" then if someone has info contrary to that, it should also be stated. So, I am just telling another of the hundreds of "stories" on here. > > > I also think that the 36 foot origami hulls and smaller are truly great boats. I think when the design exceeds 40 feet, a whole new set of rules apply. Can they be built with a single chine, do you now need to add a way more structural integrity to the fold up plan,are structural bulkheads needed ,etc I know that it is a dreaded word here but at some point some engineering should be done or the whole boat can be a floppy noodle in the water. > Frank. | 25322|25244|2011-02-10 17:59:27|brentswain38|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|The 36 which pounded for 16 days in Baja surf just south of San Ignatio in 82 was the one which hit again off Todos Santos and never came back off. Not much of a navigator on her, but a great demolition test pilot. When she went aground the locals helped him shore up the hull skeg joint, where she had eventually cracked, about 3/4 inch outside the weld, on the hull plate, after 16 days in big surf the last grounding, with no damage. Withthhe skeg buried completely in g hard packed sand and huge surf hitting the hull something had to give eventually. Then he abandoned the boat, and headed for La Paz to party for a few days. The Mexican Navy sent a helicopter over , but seeing no one there, forgot about trying to help him. By the time he got back the boat was full of sand. That skeg was 2 inches wide. I have since increased the skeg width to 5 inches , drastically increasing its strength, as well as putting gussets for and aft of the transverse webs, exponentially increasing the strength of the attachment of the skeg to the hull, despite it having proven strong enough to have survived 16 days, buried in hard sand while the hull was being hammered by up to 12 foot swells in a previous grounding. A surfer saw the boat two years later , still basically intact .Patrick has a photo of it then. The keel never came off. Would that be the case with a fibreglass boat, after spending two years, in all kinds of surf, on a lee shore? The only one I'm aware of cracking under the engine beds, was not built to my design , but the owner simply welded the angle iron engine mounts to the hull plate, with no transverse connection whatever, to the centreline, nor any other strong points. I recommend the engine mounts welded to a transverse steel bulkhead, 6 ft wide, crossing and welded to the centreline . I do them all that way. If you hire someone with zero cruising experience, don't expect seamanship in the results. I'm not guilty of other people screwups, when they ignore the advice I give them. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "arctichusky44" wrote: > > First off, I think Brent should include a primer in navigation and safe watchkeeping with his book with all these collisions and groundings.Again this is just word of mouth and of course the numbers keep changing and getting bigger or smaller as needed. I think Brent needs to come clean on something and that is that one of the 36'ers never came off the Baja beach. It got thoroughly smashed until the keel hinged off then it filled with sand. Its still there! Another one of the hulls had some serious cracking under the engine bed where the stringers were welded to the hull. I saw the water seeping in myself. THESE are facts. regards ,Frank--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > The first origami 36 I did t-boned a steel barge at hull speed. Zero damage, then hit a log boom at 12 knots , zero damage again, then pounded for 16 days on a Baja lee shore in 8 to 12 foot surf,and was dragged off thru 8to 12 foot surf, still no serious damage. > > Another pounded for 300 yards across a Fijian coral ref in big surf and was pulled of the reef thru the same surf, no serious damage. She later hit a freighter in Gibralter in fog, again no serious damage. So the tests have already been done. How long would a " approved " fibreglass hull have done in those conditions. This makes approval of a boat which have survived the above, by organizations which approve stock fibreglas boats,moot points. > > There will always be ludite skeptics. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > what I meant is if we (or someone) would like to know how far the BS design could be pushed before it starts to have sign of failure. > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: williswildest@ > > > Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 19:37:28 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Satisfactory service experience" for Brent's design is about 30 years or so. > > > > > > > > > > > > If such option is acceptable by ABS (as for most old designs which were done without engineering data backup at that time), why is not it good for skeptics? No need to go into an extreme ;)) > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we would need a volunteer to travel the world with a BS boat and park the boat in every huracanes, tornados and cyclones anounce and against reef, > > > > > > > and do a report after the boat have encounter a few dozens of those > > > > > > > that would be a good test to convince scecptics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > | 25323|25244|2011-02-10 18:02:25|brentswain38|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|Thanks . Wish I had that quote last summer. I have always believed the calculations should always be compared with what has worked in the real world, and in the case of a discrepancy, the later should be given more weight. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > ABS does not take into an account effect of the shape on small sailboat. And this is justifiable by ABS (or any other marine standard). All scantling rules came from boat/ships with service records. Failures were analyzed, improvements made, rules created. ABS will accept different scantling rules on case_to_case basis - means "design with service records" OR "supported by engineering data/calculations for new design" > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I noticed that ABS rules don't take into account the huge effect of curvature on stiffness, making them totally meaningless on well curved hulls, such as sailing hulls. > > > | 25324|25244|2011-02-10 18:08:13|brentswain38|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|When the boat , Mungo , the first origami 36 I ever built , came off the beach, after the first 16 days of pounding , she was as fair as the day I built her. Not a dent anywhere. Had she had frames, the plate would have been wrapped around the framing, and she would have looked like a hungry horse. Frames would have increased, drastically, the chances of holing at each of the frames. The 36 with the engine mount problems, Island Breeze, had completed a circumnavigation, before the engine mount problems. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Frank, > > As a reader of the group, I am interested in good examples as well as failures. But, Frank, you need to make yourself clear as well. You are NOT telling "facts". You are telling "stories". You saw the hull? Pictures with a date please ;) You saw it again, still there? Pictures! Did you actually see how it got there? At least that hull is on the beach, not on the bottom of the sea. > > Crack under the engine's bead leaking? Pictures? Did you advise the owner to do repair right away? Or did owner said "I am sailing anyway!" > > Were it latest or earlier designs? > > And I am not picking on you Frank. All information is appreciated. > > This is normal process of design evolution. If there are some problems, it need to be fixed. As I remember, these examples were brought up before, and Brent explained how he fixed it. That what I am interested in. What was the problem, what was the solution. > > On other hand... Most of the boat are DIY. Some people think that if they put more frames, boat will be more reliable. It could be quite opposite for "origami" hull. The same with HOW the frames and reinforcement are done. Etc, etc, etc.... > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "arctichusky44" wrote: > > > > First off, I think Brent should include a primer in navigation and safe watchkeeping with his book with all these collisions and groundings.Again this is just word of mouth and of course the numbers keep changing and getting bigger or smaller as needed. I think Brent needs to come clean on something and that is that one of the 36'ers never came off the Baja beach. It got thoroughly smashed until the keel hinged off then it filled with sand. Its still there! Another one of the hulls had some serious cracking under the engine bed where the stringers were welded to the hull. I saw the water seeping in myself. THESE are facts. regards ,Frank > | 25325|25244|2011-02-10 18:23:13|brentswain38|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|No one has ever claimed they have never had a structural failure, only that none has ever had a structural failure at sea. The biggest origami boats that I'm aware of are a couple of aluminium 55 footers built in Port Hardy. I saw one leaving Xmas Island a few years back , heading back to BC in November. The owner loves gale force winds in Hecate strait. He has sailed enough miles in that area to have completed several circumnavigations. You can meet him at old Bella Bella. Harvey, a west coast geoduck diver, has the other one. Neither has transverse frames ,neither has had any structural problems, whatever. When you put stiffeners in , you have the choice of longitudinal or transverse. On a hard chine hull, with the only curves being longitudinal, amidships , longitudinals running along the curve are far more effective, as they help maintain the curve. Transverse only stiffen the plate for a couple of inches either side of the transverse frames. For the same reason, transverse beams are far more effective on a cabin top than longitudinals. There is nothing quite as effective as a sheet metal model, to make this clear in 3D. If I wanted added stiffness in a bigger boat, I would consider more or bigger longitudinals as being far more effective. The opposite would be true in a round bilged boat. Slab sided power boats are an entirely different scenario. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "arctichusky44" wrote: > > > Ha ha you are hilarious! As soon as someone mentions an item contrary to the origami philosophy of being infallible and indestructive he is challenged whereas no-one ever questions Brent's sometime's outlandish claims. A major number of the statements made on this site are exactly what you you call them,"stories" and I would tend to wave he b.s. flag on many of them.When you rely on hearsay to formulate a credible opinion of something,the results are oftn less than promised. I am not saying that Brent's boats or the origami method is less or more than what meets the eye but we need a clear an unbiased opinion on the process. What I was trying to point out is that when a statement is made to the group that "there has ever been a case of structural failure,period" then if someone has info contrary to that, it should also be stated. So, I am just telling another of the hundreds of "stories" on here. I also think that the 36 foot origami hulls and smaller are truly great boats. I think when the design exceeds 40 feet, a whole new set of rules apply. Can they be built with a single chine, do you now need to add a way more structural integrity to the fold up plan,are structural bulkheads needed ,etc I know that it is a dreaded word here but at some point some engineering should be done or the whole boat can be a floppy noodle in the water. I remmber a ship I used to work on years ago and it was so poorly designed that it undulated over every wave and once it started to shake fore and aft it had to be slowed down to stop the flopping. It just didn't have enough fore and aft members to give it strength. This is why I think your analysis is good, Wild. Gives some empirical basis to the process. Anyways, have fun with your building or at least the dreams of it. > Frank. > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > Frank, > > > > As a reader of the group, I am interested in good examples as well as failures. But, Frank, you need to make yourself clear as well. You are NOT telling "facts". You are telling "stories". You saw the hull? Pictures with a date please ;) You saw it again, still there? Pictures! Did you actually see how it got there? At least that hull is on the beach, not on the bottom of the sea. > > > > Crack under the engine's bead leaking? Pictures? Did you advise the owner to do repair right away? Or did owner said "I am sailing anyway!" > > > > Were it latest or earlier designs? > > > > And I am not picking on you Frank. All information is appreciated. > > > > This is normal process of design evolution. If there are some problems, it need to be fixed. As I remember, these examples were brought up before, and Brent explained how he fixed it. That what I am interested in. What was the problem, what was the solution. > > > > On other hand... Most of the boat are DIY. Some people think that if they put more frames, boat will be more reliable. It could be quite opposite for "origami" hull. The same with HOW the frames and reinforcement are done. Etc, etc, etc.... > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "arctichusky44" wrote: > > > > > > First off, I think Brent should include a primer in navigation and safe watchkeeping with his book with all these collisions and groundings.Again this is just word of mouth and of course the numbers keep changing and getting bigger or smaller as needed. I think Brent needs to come clean on something and that is that one of the 36'ers never came off the Baja beach. It got thoroughly smashed until the keel hinged off then it filled with sand. Its still there! Another one of the hulls had some serious cracking under the engine bed where the stringers were welded to the hull. I saw the water seeping in myself. THESE are facts. regards ,Frank > > > | 25326|25244|2011-02-10 20:27:16|brentswain38|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|Jim I just checked your latest post on Gauss curve. Looks good. Where it suggested my hulls need reinforcement ,there is a lot of reinforcement. Along the bulwark there is the hull deck joint, a huge, fully welded steel bulkhead equivalent, structurally. In the midships centreline area, there is the water tank top, a four foot wide piece of 3/16th plate, parallel to the waterline, and it's ends and baffles.It too is the equivalent of a fully welded steel bulkhead , structurally. In the twin keel version, there are also four 3 inch by 3 inch by half inch angle irons per side, taking the weight of the keels from the chine to the tank top edge. The stem has a 2 inch by half inch flat bar on edge, welded inside. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Thanks . Wish I had that quote last summer. I have always believed the calculations should always be compared with what has worked in the real world, and in the case of a discrepancy, the later should be given more weight. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > ABS does not take into an account effect of the shape on small sailboat. And this is justifiable by ABS (or any other marine standard). All scantling rules came from boat/ships with service records. Failures were analyzed, improvements made, rules created. ABS will accept different scantling rules on case_to_case basis - means "design with service records" OR "supported by engineering data/calculations for new design" > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I noticed that ABS rules don't take into account the huge effect of curvature on stiffness, making them totally meaningless on well curved hulls, such as sailing hulls. > > > > > > | 25327|25279|2011-02-10 20:53:25|brentswain38|Re: zinc attachment|At the first opportunity. I like to tack a bit of steel on , connecting one corner of the zinc to the hull, guaranteeing electrical connection. Too much weld makes the straps hard to remove. The ss bolts give the strength you need, the tack is only to guarantee electrical connection. Wooden boat builders wouldn't go to sea without wood working tools on board. Would it make sense for steel boat cruisers to not have an alternator welder aboard, when they cost under $50? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I usually put one Z3 centred on the bottom of the rudder and one each side of the keel- skeg plate. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. All the best, MarkH > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 25328|25244|2011-02-10 21:25:35|arctichusky44|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|The two boats built in Pt.Hardy are actually 50 footers. There is a fellow in Courtenay building a 55ft triple chine origami pilot house cutter now. according to him that after talking with Harvey it was stongly advised to add lots more structural material. I believe that he has put cross blocking (transverse) between all the longitudinals to stop them from tripping and to carry the loads of the keel and chainplates up the hull sides. I think he told me that he never welded the tranverse to the hull skin , only to the longitudinals. I hven't checed in for while with him but it must be nearing completion soon. Frank --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > No one has ever claimed they have never had a structural failure, only that none has ever had a structural failure at sea. > The biggest origami boats that I'm aware of are a couple of aluminium 55 footers built in Port Hardy. I saw one leaving Xmas Island a few years back , heading back to BC in November. The owner loves gale force winds in Hecate strait. He has sailed enough miles in that area to have completed several circumnavigations. You can meet him at old Bella Bella. > Harvey, a west coast geoduck diver, has the other one. Neither has transverse frames ,neither has had any structural problems, whatever. > When you put stiffeners in , you have the choice of longitudinal or transverse. On a hard chine hull, with the only curves being longitudinal, amidships , longitudinals running along the curve are far more effective, as they help maintain the curve. Transverse only stiffen the plate for a couple of inches either side of the transverse frames. For the same reason, transverse beams are far more effective on a cabin top than longitudinals. > There is nothing quite as effective as a sheet metal model, to make this clear in 3D. > If I wanted added stiffness in a bigger boat, I would consider more or bigger longitudinals as being far more effective. The opposite would be true in a round bilged boat. Slab sided power boats are an entirely different scenario. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "arctichusky44" wrote: > > > > > > Ha ha you are hilarious! As soon as someone mentions an item contrary to the origami philosophy of being infallible and indestructive he is challenged whereas no-one ever questions Brent's sometime's outlandish claims. A major number of the statements made on this site are exactly what you you call them,"stories" and I would tend to wave he b.s. flag on many of them.When you rely on hearsay to formulate a credible opinion of something,the results are oftn less than promised. I am not saying that Brent's boats or the origami method is less or more than what meets the eye but we need a clear an unbiased opinion on the process. What I was trying to point out is that when a statement is made to the group that "there has ever been a case of structural failure,period" then if someone has info contrary to that, it should also be stated. So, I am just telling another of the hundreds of "stories" on here. I also think that the 36 foot origami hulls and smaller are truly great boats. I think when the design exceeds 40 feet, a whole new set of rules apply. Can they be built with a single chine, do you now need to add a way more structural integrity to the fold up plan,are structural bulkheads needed ,etc I know that it is a dreaded word here but at some point some engineering should be done or the whole boat can be a floppy noodle in the water. I remmber a ship I used to work on years ago and it was so poorly designed that it undulated over every wave and once it started to shake fore and aft it had to be slowed down to stop the flopping. It just didn't have enough fore and aft members to give it strength. This is why I think your analysis is good, Wild. Gives some empirical basis to the process. Anyways, have fun with your building or at least the dreams of it. > > Frank. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > Frank, > > > > > > As a reader of the group, I am interested in good examples as well as failures. But, Frank, you need to make yourself clear as well. You are NOT telling "facts". You are telling "stories". You saw the hull? Pictures with a date please ;) You saw it again, still there? Pictures! Did you actually see how it got there? At least that hull is on the beach, not on the bottom of the sea. > > > > > > Crack under the engine's bead leaking? Pictures? Did you advise the owner to do repair right away? Or did owner said "I am sailing anyway!" > > > > > > Were it latest or earlier designs? > > > > > > And I am not picking on you Frank. All information is appreciated. > > > > > > This is normal process of design evolution. If there are some problems, it need to be fixed. As I remember, these examples were brought up before, and Brent explained how he fixed it. That what I am interested in. What was the problem, what was the solution. > > > > > > On other hand... Most of the boat are DIY. Some people think that if they put more frames, boat will be more reliable. It could be quite opposite for "origami" hull. The same with HOW the frames and reinforcement are done. Etc, etc, etc.... > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "arctichusky44" wrote: > > > > > > > > First off, I think Brent should include a primer in navigation and safe watchkeeping with his book with all these collisions and groundings.Again this is just word of mouth and of course the numbers keep changing and getting bigger or smaller as needed. I think Brent needs to come clean on something and that is that one of the 36'ers never came off the Baja beach. It got thoroughly smashed until the keel hinged off then it filled with sand. Its still there! Another one of the hulls had some serious cracking under the engine bed where the stringers were welded to the hull. I saw the water seeping in myself. THESE are facts. regards ,Frank > > > > > > | 25329|25279|2011-02-10 22:42:37|aaron riis|Re: flex couplling|I want to have my engine as far aft as I can, thinking about a short floating stuffing box without a flex coupling, the shaft will be less than 4 feet total.  some people say that that increases vibration, but Brent's book talks about solidly mounting the engine.  what do you think?  Aaron --- On Thu, 2/10/11, brentswain38 wrote: From: brentswain38 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 5:53 PM   At the first opportunity. I like to tack a bit of steel on , connecting one corner of the zinc to the hull, guaranteeing electrical connection. Too much weld makes the straps hard to remove. The ss bolts give the strength you need, the tack is only to guarantee electrical connection. Wooden boat builders wouldn't go to sea without wood working tools on board. Would it make sense for steel boat cruisers to not have an alternator welder aboard, when they cost under $50? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I usually put one Z3 centred on the bottom of the rudder and one each side of the keel- skeg plate. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. All the best, MarkH > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25330|25244|2011-02-11 00:00:31|arctichusky44|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|what I don understand Brent, is what is the difference in transverse members between continuous framing and the occational bulheads ie" tank ends,baffles etc. Each of these create hard spots on the hull. I would think it only needs one hard spot to create a crack in the plating. Why not just add alot of them and go for the extra strength? Greg , in Courtenay, building the big alloy hull has four watertight compartments and lots of transfer framing on his theoretical origami hull; Where do you draw the line? He jut sent me some pics and it all looks impressive and appropriate. Frank --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Jim > I just checked your latest post on Gauss curve. Looks good. > Where it suggested my hulls need reinforcement ,there is a lot of reinforcement. Along the bulwark there is the hull deck joint, a huge, fully welded steel bulkhead equivalent, structurally. > In the midships centreline area, there is the water tank top, a four foot wide piece of 3/16th plate, parallel to the waterline, and it's ends and baffles.It too is the equivalent of a fully welded steel bulkhead , structurally. > In the twin keel version, there are also four 3 inch by 3 inch by half inch angle irons per side, taking the weight of the keels from the chine to the tank top edge. > The stem has a 2 inch by half inch flat bar on edge, welded inside. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Thanks . Wish I had that quote last summer. I have always believed the calculations should always be compared with what has worked in the real world, and in the case of a discrepancy, the later should be given more weight. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > ABS does not take into an account effect of the shape on small sailboat. And this is justifiable by ABS (or any other marine standard). All scantling rules came from boat/ships with service records. Failures were analyzed, improvements made, rules created. ABS will accept different scantling rules on case_to_case basis - means "design with service records" OR "supported by engineering data/calculations for new design" > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > I noticed that ABS rules don't take into account the huge effect of curvature on stiffness, making them totally meaningless on well curved hulls, such as sailing hulls. > > > > > > > > > > | 25331|25244|2011-02-11 01:12:31|wild_explorer|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|This is very interesting subject. I need to check the standard, but as I remember, longitudinal frames are recommended for small boat. It is not recommended to use transverse frames (the way it done on big ships) for metal boats, but requires transverse reinforcement by others means. As I understand it (I could be wrong and need to check again) that what you describe "transverse reinforcement welded on longitudinals" is a regular practice for "non-origami" boats. Might be good practice on origami hull as well. The subject gets even more complicated, because we are talking about sailboat - which has more stress on the hull than regular boat. I am still puzzled how to make watertight bulkhead (if I want one) without welding it to the hull's skin (at least collar for it). --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "arctichusky44" wrote: > > I think he told me that he never welded the tranverse to the hull skin , only to the longitudinals. > > Frank | 25332|25279|2011-02-11 06:46:14|martin demers|Re: zinc attachment|To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:53:14 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment At the first opportunity. I like to tack a bit of steel on , connecting one corner of the zinc to the hull, guaranteeing electrical connection. Too much weld makes the straps hard to remove. The ss bolts give the strength you need, the tack is only to guarantee electrical connection. Wooden boat builders wouldn't go to sea without wood working tools on board. Would it make sense for steel boat cruisers to not have an alternator welder aboard, when they cost under $50? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I usually put one Z3 centred on the bottom of the rudder and one each side of the keel- skeg plate. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. All the best, MarkH > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25333|25279|2011-02-11 06:52:24|martin demers|Re: zinc attachment|I want to bring my Lincoln welder with me in my boat.. a little big but could be usefull for major modifications when far away(as long if they have same electricity grid overthere)... Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:53:14 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment At the first opportunity. I like to tack a bit of steel on , connecting one corner of the zinc to the hull, guaranteeing electrical connection. Too much weld makes the straps hard to remove. The ss bolts give the strength you need, the tack is only to guarantee electrical connection. Wooden boat builders wouldn't go to sea without wood working tools on board. Would it make sense for steel boat cruisers to not have an alternator welder aboard, when they cost under $50? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I usually put one Z3 centred on the bottom of the rudder and one each side of the keel- skeg plate. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. All the best, MarkH > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25334|25243|2011-02-11 11:21:42|wild_explorer|Re: Technical notes for boatbuilding|Quote from ABS "RULES FOR BUILDING AND CLASSING STEEL VESSELS UNDER 90 METERS (295 FEET) IN LENGTH" 2011 PART 3 HULL CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT" (part3.pdf page 78) PART 3 CHAPTER 2 Hull Structures and Arrangements SECTION 7 Watertight Bulkheads and Doors 1 General All vessels having lengths, L, equal to or exceeding 15 m (50 ft) are to be provided with watertight bulkheads in accordance with this section. The plans submitted are to clearly show the location and extent of each watertight bulkhead. Watertight bulkheads constructed in accordance with the Rules will be recorded in the Record as WT (watertight), the symbols being prefixed in each case by the number of such bulkheads. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Some information (rules, recommendations) for building offshore metal boat (including welding). Looks useful. > > http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/appmanager/absEagle/absEagleDesktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=abs_eagle_portal_rules_guides_download_page&nodePath=%2FBEA+Repository%2FRules%26Guides%2FCurrent%2F37_OffshoreRacingYachts > > http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/appmanager/absEagle/absEagleDesktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=abs_eagle_portal_rules_guides_download_page&nodePath=%2FBEA+Repository%2FRules%26Guides%2FCurrent%2F5_Under90_2011 > | 25335|25244|2011-02-11 11:39:12|wild_explorer|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|So, according to ABS rules, watertight bulkhead is NOT required on vessel under 15m, but MUST for vessels from 15m (~49ft) to 90m (~295ft) But you can make one if you want. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > I am still puzzled how to make watertight bulkhead (if I want one) without welding it to the hull's skin (at least collar for it). > | 25336|25243|2011-02-11 13:20:49|wild_explorer|Re: Technical notes for boatbuilding|Quote: "Realistically, many designs are undertaken using static analysis with such a slamming design pressure and reduction factors to account for location, panel size, structural dynamics and type of boat. The slamming design pressure typically depends on the size and speed of the yacht. Joubert (1982) analysed 7 actual yacht failures or large plastic deformations that occurred when beating to windward in gale force winds. Using a knowledge of the hull structure, Joubert was able to hind cast the slamming loads that would be necessary to cause the damage. Using four different analysis techniques (linear theory, membrane stresses, plastic deformation analysis, and plastic limit theory with large deformations) he found widely differing pressure predictions. Joubert's final conclusion was that although the data is sparse the bottom panel loads on 40 foot length yachts beating in a gale may involve slamming pressures as great as 80 psi." End of quote. Source: INTERNATIONAL SHIP AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES CONGRESS papers| 25337|25015|2011-02-11 14:46:37|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Quote: Structural Arrangement The structural arrangements of sailing yachts vary significantly depending on the vessel size, its mission and the construction materials used. Small vessels less than 10 metres in length typically rely on the hull skin and deck for most of the structural support while yachts longer than 24 metres use a system of bulkheads, ring frames and longitudinals to support the skins. An inshore vessel may have no bulkheads while ocean-crossing vessels may have multiple watertight bulkheads. End of quote. Source: INTERNATIONAL SHIP AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES CONGRESS papers| 25338|25244|2011-02-11 16:14:20|Darren Bos|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|Frank, Do you know the reason the extra framing was recommended, did Harvey's 50' experience some structural issue, or was it built with extra framing to begin with? Darren At 06:25 PM 10/02/2011, you wrote: > > >The two boats built in Pt.Hardy are actually 50 >footers. There is a fellow in Courtenay building >a 55ft triple chine origami pilot house cutter >now. according to him that after talking with >Harvey it was stongly advised to add lots more >structural material. I believe that he has put >cross blocking (transverse) between all the >longitudinals to stop them from tripping and to >carry the loads of the keel and chainplates up >the hull sides. I think he told me that he never >welded the tranverse to the hull skin , only to >the longitudinals. I hven't checed in for while >with him but it must be nearing completion soon. >Frank > >--- In >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, >"brentswain38" wrote: > > > > No one has ever claimed they have never had a > structural failure, only that none has ever had a structural failure at sea. > > The biggest origami boats that I'm aware of > are a couple of aluminium 55 footers built in > Port Hardy. I saw one leaving Xmas Island a few > years back , heading back to BC in November. > The owner loves gale force winds in Hecate > strait. He has sailed enough miles in that area > to have completed several circumnavigations. > You can meet him at old Bella Bella. > > Harvey, a west coast geoduck diver, has the > other one. Neither has transverse frames > ,neither has had any structural problems, whatever. > > When you put stiffeners in , you have the > choice of longitudinal or transverse. On a hard > chine hull, with the only curves being > longitudinal, amidships , longitudinals running > along the curve are far more effective, as they > help maintain the curve. Transverse only > stiffen the plate for a couple of inches either > side of the transverse frames. For the same > reason, transverse beams are far more effective > on a cabin top than longitudinals. > > There is nothing quite as effective as a > sheet metal model, to make this clear in 3D. > > If I wanted added stiffness in a bigger boat, > I would consider more or bigger longitudinals > as being far more effective. The opposite would > be true in a round bilged boat. Slab sided > power boats are an entirely different scenario. > > > > --- In > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > "arctichusky44" wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ha ha you are hilarious! As soon as someone > mentions an item contrary to the origami > philosophy of being infallible and > indestructive he is challenged whereas no-one > ever questions Brent's sometime's outlandish > claims. A major number of the statements made > on this site are exactly what you you call > them,"stories" and I would tend to wave he b.s. > flag on many of them.When you rely on hearsay > to formulate a credible opinion of > something,the results are oftn less than > promised. I am not saying that Brent's boats or > the origami method is less or more than what > meets the eye but we need a clear an unbiased > opinion on the process. What I was trying to > point out is that when a statement is made to > the group that "there has ever been a case of > structural failure,period" then if someone has > info contrary to that, it should also be > stated. So, I am just telling another of the > hundreds of "stories" on here. I also think > that the 36 foot origami hulls and smaller are > truly great boats. I think when the design > exceeds 40 feet, a whole new set of rules > apply. Can they be built with a single chine, > do you now need to add a way more structural > integrity to the fold up plan,are structural > bulkheads needed ,etc I know that it is a > dreaded word here but at some point some > engineering should be done or the whole boat > can be a floppy noodle in the water. I remmber > a ship I used to work on years ago and it was > so poorly designed that it undulated over every > wave and once it started to shake fore and aft > it had to be slowed down to stop the flopping. > It just didn't have enough fore and aft members > to give it strength. This is why I think your > analysis is good, Wild. Gives some empirical > basis to the process. Anyways, have fun with > your building or at least the dreams of it. > > > Frank. > > > --- In > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > Frank, > > > > > > > > As a reader of the group, I am interested > in good examples as well as failures. But, > Frank, you need to make yourself clear as well. > You are NOT telling "facts". You are telling > "stories". You saw the hull? Pictures with a > date please ;) You saw it again, still there? > Pictures! Did you actually see how it got > there? At least that hull is on the beach, not on the bottom of the sea. > > > > > > > > Crack under the engine's bead leaking? > Pictures? Did you advise the owner to do repair > right away? Or did owner said "I am sailing anyway!" > > > > > > > > Were it latest or earlier designs? > > > > > > > > And I am not picking on you Frank. All information is appreciated. > > > > > > > > This is normal process of design > evolution. If there are some problems, it need > to be fixed. As I remember, these examples were > brought up before, and Brent explained how he > fixed it. That what I am interested in. What > was the problem, what was the solution. > > > > > > > > On other hand... Most of the boat are > DIY. Some people think that if they put more > frames, boat will be more reliable. It could be > quite opposite for "origami" hull. The same > with HOW the frames and reinforcement are done. Etc, etc, etc.... > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, > "arctichusky44" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > First off, I think Brent should include > a primer in navigation and safe watchkeeping > with his book with all these collisions and > groundings.Again this is just word of mouth and > of course the numbers keep changing and getting > bigger or smaller as needed. I think Brent > needs to come clean on something and that is > that one of the 36'ers never came off the Baja > beach. It got thoroughly smashed until the keel > hinged off then it filled with sand. Its still > there! Another one of the hulls had some > serious cracking under the engine bed where the > stringers were welded to the hull. I saw the > water seeping in myself. THESE are facts. regards ,Frank > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25339|25015|2011-02-11 16:45:50|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|Quote: 1 MATERIALS 1.1 Normal shipbuilding steel shall have at least the following mechanical properties: yield stress 240 N/mm2 tensile strength 410 N/mm2 ultimate strain 22 % 2 CORRECTIONS 2.1 The dimensioning is based on a material with yield stressσ02 = 240 N/mm2. If steel with another yield stress is used the requirement to plate thickness may be multiplied by: f1 –√(240 /σ02) 2.2 When the ratio (a/b) between the sides in an unstiffened panel (where (a) is length of the largest side and (b) is length of the shortest side) is less than 2, the requirement to plate thickness may be multiplied by: f2 = 0.6 + 0.2 * a/b 2.3 If the plate has a significant curvature, the requirement to thickness may be multiplied by: f3 = 1 - 0.8 * f/s, however at least 0.85 Note (instead of picture): s - "width of plate", f - "deflection" 2.4 For thickness of plates the correction factors are combined as follows: f = f1 * f2 * f3 2.5 If the material has another yield stress than 240 N/mm2, the section modulus may be multiplied by: fw = 240 /σ0.2 End of quote. Source: NBS < 15m| 25340|25244|2011-02-13 14:48:30|boatwayupnorth|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|Brent, regarding the flat bar reinforcement at the inside of the stem: In the plans the only place where I found this indicated is in drawing 3. It seems that the flatbar is to be welded in from the underside of the anchor well downwards. It doesnt say how far down this flatbar is supposed to continue. It also seems that the flatbar has to be bend or cut to fit. Is this correct? If this is not too clear I would be happy to post a picture from this part of the drawing if that is ok with you. I was also wondering about what looks like a big gusset between skeg and keel (for the fin keeler). In the photo section this is visible in the Ocean Pearl and the Austin Hull album. It is indicated in drawings 1 and 6 of the plans you have send me, but there is no detailed drawing with any measurements. Could you provide this? And while I am at it: Here in Europe, steel plate is available as either 4 or 5 mm. 3/16 is equivalent to 4,76 mm. I know you said before that you would recommend 4mm for your 31. Would you rule out going down to 4 mm for the 36? Thanks Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Jim > I just checked your latest post on Gauss curve. Looks good. > Where it suggested my hulls need reinforcement ,there is a lot of reinforcement. ... > The stem has a 2 inch by half inch flat bar on edge, welded inside. > | 25341|25244|2011-02-14 00:25:15|Kim|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|Hi Walter ... Although you're building a 36-footer, for following comments about my 26-footer might be useful for comparison: For my 26-footer the reinforcement at the inside of the stem isn't indicated anywhere on the plans themselves; but it is noted on page 36 on Brent's book, where it says it's made from 1/2" PL x 2". I guess the "PL" means it should be cut from 1/2" plate? It would be cheaper/easier if a 1/2" x 2" flat bar could be bent to shape for this - has anybody done it that way? From past comments made in this group I understand that this reinforcement is an important part of the boat's structure. I don't know how far down it's supposed to go; but I vaguely remember from earlier messages that it only goes down as far as the waterline. Will be looking forward to Brent's confirmation (or otherwise) on that. Also: to prevent rusting between the forward 1/2" edge of the 1/2" x 2" reinforcement and the aft (inside) face of the stem, I assume the weld on this reinforcement would have to be continuous and airtight? Although my 26-footer will have twin keels, it also has a big gusset forward of the skeg. Its aft edge is about half the height of the forward face of the skeg, and its most forward point is where it tapers off (on the hull centerline) about in line with the aft face of the twin keels. My plans show it as being cut from 1/2" plate. My plans don't show any dimensions for it either, so its precise shape probably doesn't matter much. I was just going to scale its dimensions from the plans, and fit it so that it looks about the same as it does on the drawings. Can't help you with the mm equivalent for 3/16" plate for your 36-footer. For my 26-footer the hull was shown as 10 gauge (1/8"?) and cabinsides and cabintops as 12 gauge (3/32"?). Here in Australia only metric sizes are available too, as is the case in Europe. I asked Brent the same question, and he said to use 3mm for the hull (with 4mm in the bilge area - this is the "add-on" piece that's welded on when the hull sheets are still flat on the ground), 5mm for the skeg, 6mm for the twin keels, and 3mm for the deck, cabinsides and cabintops. Those are the sheet thicknesses I've used. Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "boatwayupnorth" wrote: > > Brent, regarding the flat bar reinforcement at the inside of the stem: In the plans the only place where I found this indicated is in drawing 3. It seems that the flatbar is to be welded in from the underside of the anchor well downwards. It doesnt say how far down this flatbar is supposed to continue. It also seems that the flatbar has to be bend or cut to fit. Is this correct? If this is not too clear I would be happy to post a picture from this part of the drawing if that is ok with you. > > I was also wondering about what looks like a big gusset between skeg and keel (for the fin keeler). In the photo section this is visible in the Ocean Pearl and the Austin Hull album. It is indicated in drawings 1 and 6 of the plans you have send me, but there is no detailed drawing with any measurements. Could you provide this? > > And while I am at it: Here in Europe, steel plate is available as either 4 or 5 mm. 3/16 is equivalent to 4,76 mm. I know you said before that you would recommend 4mm for your 31. Would you rule out going down to 4 mm for the 36? > Thanks > Walter > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Jim > > I just checked your latest post on Gauss curve. Looks good. > > Where it suggested my hulls need reinforcement ,there is a lot of reinforcement. > ... > > The stem has a 2 inch by half inch flat bar on edge, welded inside. ______________________________________________________________ | 25342|25244|2011-02-14 06:00:33|boatwayupnorth|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|Hi Kim, Seems like you are on dry land again? Is life back to normal down under? Great progress you made on your 26! I follow your blog with envy. The drawing on pg 36 in Brents booklet is the one in the plans I was referring to. You are right; of course, it says "plate", not "flatbar". I rechecked the materials list in the files section. For the 36 a piece of 18"x 12 ft x 1/2" plate is included. I thought this was for the keel sole, but maybe it's for the bow reinforcement and the gusset in front of the skeg as well. Hopefully that's another thing Brent can clear up. By the way, the material list for the 26 does not include any ½" plate – see: http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/IP1YTcf8slEyDx2Gg_MTZ0tNcV-BpR1Q2VLmTMlNQVWrVorfKXukuPRu0zyKvHdfXp6WuioOm2SzlhWTRWCxc_wLedNFyWaHg-LQMg/Material%20List%20Swain%2026%27. "I don't know how far down it's supposed to go; but I vaguely remember from earlier messages that it only goes down as far as the waterline." I suppose the plate (or FB) has to be welded to the underside of the anchor well and the lower end has to end in a transverse floor to stabilize it? Much appreciated if anybody who has done this can comment. "to prevent rusting between the forward 1/2" edge of the 1/2" x 2" reinforcement and the aft (inside) face of the stem, I assume the weld on this reinforcement would have to be continuous and airtight?" Probably, but wouldn't that lead to a lot of potential distortion? "Although my 26-footer will have twin keels, it also has a big gusset forward of the skeg. Its aft edge is about half the height of the forward face of the skeg, and its most forward point is where it tapers off (on the hull centerline) about in line with the aft face of the twin keels. My plans show it as being cut from 1/2" plate. My plans don't show any dimensions for it either, so its precise shape probably doesn't matter much. I was just going to scale its dimensions from the plans, and fit it so that it looks about the same as it does on the drawings." You are probably right. In the plans I bought there are no dimensions at all and the shape that is indicated varies in the plans and diverse photos from finished boats. It's probably a matter of taste and guesswork. Hopefully Brent can give us some indication. "Can't help you with the mm equivalent for 3/16" plate for your 36-footer. For my 26-footer the hull was shown as 10 gauge (1/8"?) and cabinsides and cabintops as 12 gauge (3/32"?)." Maybe it's time to make an effort and translate all dimensions from imperial to metric? Thank's for your input, Kim! Much appreciated! Cheers Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Walter ... > > Although you're building a 36-footer, for following comments about my 26-footer might be useful for comparison: > > For my 26-footer the reinforcement at the inside of the stem isn't indicated anywhere on the plans themselves; but it is noted on page 36 on Brent's book, where it says it's made from 1/2" PL x 2". I guess the "PL" means it should be cut from 1/2" plate? It would be cheaper/easier if a 1/2" x 2" flat bar could be bent to shape for this - has anybody done it that way? From past comments made in this group I understand that this reinforcement is an important part of the boat's structure. I don't know how far down it's supposed to go; but I vaguely remember from earlier messages that it only goes down as far as the waterline. Will be looking forward to Brent's confirmation (or otherwise) on that. Also: to prevent rusting between the forward 1/2" edge of the 1/2" x 2" reinforcement and the aft (inside) face of the stem, I assume the weld on this reinforcement would have to be continuous and airtight? > > Although my 26-footer will have twin keels, it also has a big gusset forward of the skeg. Its aft edge is about half the height of the forward face of the skeg, and its most forward point is where it tapers off (on the hull centerline) about in line with the aft face of the twin keels. My plans show it as being cut from 1/2" plate. My plans don't show any dimensions for it either, so its precise shape probably doesn't matter much. I was just going to scale its dimensions from the plans, and fit it so that it looks about the same as it does on the drawings. > > Can't help you with the mm equivalent for 3/16" plate for your 36-footer. For my 26-footer the hull was shown as 10 gauge (1/8"?) and cabinsides and cabintops as 12 gauge (3/32"?). Here in Australia only metric sizes are available too, as is the case in Europe. I asked Brent the same question, and he said to use 3mm for the hull (with 4mm in the bilge area - this is the "add-on" piece that's welded on when the hull sheets are still flat on the ground), 5mm for the skeg, 6mm for the twin keels, and 3mm for the deck, cabinsides and cabintops. Those are the sheet thicknesses I've used. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "boatwayupnorth" wrote: > > > > Brent, regarding the flat bar reinforcement at the inside of the stem: In the plans the only place where I found this indicated is in drawing 3. It seems that the flatbar is to be welded in from the underside of the anchor well downwards. It doesnt say how far down this flatbar is supposed to continue. It also seems that the flatbar has to be bend or cut to fit. Is this correct? If this is not too clear I would be happy to post a picture from this part of the drawing if that is ok with you. > > > > I was also wondering about what looks like a big gusset between skeg and keel (for the fin keeler). In the photo section this is visible in the Ocean Pearl and the Austin Hull album. It is indicated in drawings 1 and 6 of the plans you have send me, but there is no detailed drawing with any measurements. Could you provide this? > > > > And while I am at it: Here in Europe, steel plate is available as either 4 or 5 mm. 3/16 is equivalent to 4,76 mm. I know you said before that you would recommend 4mm for your 31. Would you rule out going down to 4 mm for the 36? > > Thanks > > Walter > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > Jim > > > I just checked your latest post on Gauss curve. Looks good. > > > Where it suggested my hulls need reinforcement ,there is a lot of reinforcement. > > ... > > > The stem has a 2 inch by half inch flat bar on edge, welded inside. > ______________________________________________________________ > | 25343|25244|2011-02-14 09:50:32|rhko47|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Walter ... > > Although you're building a 36-footer, for following comments about my 26-footer might be useful for comparison: > > For my 26-footer the reinforcement at the inside of the stem isn't indicated anywhere on the plans themselves; but it is noted on page 36 on Brent's book, where it says it's made from 1/2" PL x 2". I guess the "PL" means it should be cut from 1/2" plate? It would be cheaper/easier if a 1/2" x 2" flat bar could be bent to shape for this - has anybody done it that way? From past comments made in this group I understand that this reinforcement is an important part of the boat's structure. I don't know how far down it's supposed to go; but I vaguely remember from earlier messages that it only goes down as far as the waterline. Will be looking forward to Brent's confirmation (or otherwise) on that. Also: to prevent rusting between the forward 1/2" edge of the 1/2" x 2" reinforcement and the aft (inside) face of the stem, I assume the weld on this reinforcement would have to be continuous and airtight? I used 1/2" x 2" bar, bent to shape with a hydraulic bender. It runs from the underside of the anchor well down to about station 1, so that the maximum curve, just below the waterline, is in the middle of the bar. If you weld in this bar before the anchor well bottom, you can weld the upper end shut. In addition, just to neaten things up, I covered the top of that bar with a tailored piece of 1/8" plate from one side of the hull to the other. That should prevent any rusting inside. > > Although my 26-footer will have twin keels, it also has a big gusset forward of the skeg. Its aft edge is about half the height of the forward face of the skeg, and its most forward point is where it tapers off (on the hull centerline) about in line with the aft face of the twin keels. My plans show it as being cut from 1/2" plate. My plans don't show any dimensions for it either, so its precise shape probably doesn't matter much. I was just going to scale its dimensions from the plans, and fit it so that it looks about the same as it does on the drawings. > > Can't help you with the mm equivalent for 3/16" plate for your 36-footer. For my 26-footer the hull was shown as 10 gauge (1/8"?) and cabinsides and cabintops as 12 gauge (3/32"?). Here in Australia only metric sizes are available too, as is the case in Europe. I asked Brent the same question, and he said to use 3mm for the hull (with 4mm in the bilge area - this is the "add-on" piece that's welded on when the hull sheets are still flat on the ground), 5mm for the skeg, 6mm for the twin keels, and 3mm for the deck, cabinsides and cabintops. Those are the sheet thicknesses I've used. From postings here and the plans I have for the BS26, it seems that in general, the cross-sectional area of components for the 26 are about 2/3 to 3/4 those of the 36 (duh), so when in doubt, I've used that as a guide. Likewise one could scale up 1.3 - 1.5x from the BS26 scantlings you mentioned to get a reasonable dimension for an item on a BS36, though nothing beats Brent's specific advice. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "boatwayupnorth" wrote: > > > > Brent, regarding the flat bar reinforcement at the inside of the stem: In the plans the only place where I found this indicated is in drawing 3. It seems that the flatbar is to be welded in from the underside of the anchor well downwards. It doesnt say how far down this flatbar is supposed to continue. It also seems that the flatbar has to be bend or cut to fit. Is this correct? If this is not too clear I would be happy to post a picture from this part of the drawing if that is ok with you. > > > > I was also wondering about what looks like a big gusset between skeg and keel (for the fin keeler). In the photo section this is visible in the Ocean Pearl and the Austin Hull album. It is indicated in drawings 1 and 6 of the plans you have send me, but there is no detailed drawing with any measurements. Could you provide this? > > > > And while I am at it: Here in Europe, steel plate is available as either 4 or 5 mm. 3/16 is equivalent to 4,76 mm. I know you said before that you would recommend 4mm for your 31. Would you rule out going down to 4 mm for the 36? > > Thanks > > Walter > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > Jim > > > I just checked your latest post on Gauss curve. Looks good. > > > Where it suggested my hulls need reinforcement ,there is a lot of reinforcement. > > ... > > > The stem has a 2 inch by half inch flat bar on edge, welded inside. > ______________________________________________________________ > | 25344|25244|2011-02-14 10:39:00|martin demers|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|on my steel on frames classic, there is a similar flat bar of about 1/2in. x 3in. But it is aligned on another plan, it is stuck in between the two sides of the hull, the flat section being parallel to the bow to aft line and goes from bow down to front of keel. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: rhko47@... Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:50:22 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Walter ... > > Although you're building a 36-footer, for following comments about my 26-footer might be useful for comparison: > > For my 26-footer the reinforcement at the inside of the stem isn't indicated anywhere on the plans themselves; but it is noted on page 36 on Brent's book, where it says it's made from 1/2" PL x 2". I guess the "PL" means it should be cut from 1/2" plate? It would be cheaper/easier if a 1/2" x 2" flat bar could be bent to shape for this - has anybody done it that way? From past comments made in this group I understand that this reinforcement is an important part of the boat's structure. I don't know how far down it's supposed to go; but I vaguely remember from earlier messages that it only goes down as far as the waterline. Will be looking forward to Brent's confirmation (or otherwise) on that. Also: to prevent rusting between the forward 1/2" edge of the 1/2" x 2" reinforcement and the aft (inside) face of the stem, I assume the weld on this reinforcement would have to be continuous and airtight? I used 1/2" x 2" bar, bent to shape with a hydraulic bender. It runs from the underside of the anchor well down to about station 1, so that the maximum curve, just below the waterline, is in the middle of the bar. If you weld in this bar before the anchor well bottom, you can weld the upper end shut. In addition, just to neaten things up, I covered the top of that bar with a tailored piece of 1/8" plate from one side of the hull to the other. That should prevent any rusting inside. > > Although my 26-footer will have twin keels, it also has a big gusset forward of the skeg. Its aft edge is about half the height of the forward face of the skeg, and its most forward point is where it tapers off (on the hull centerline) about in line with the aft face of the twin keels. My plans show it as being cut from 1/2" plate. My plans don't show any dimensions for it either, so its precise shape probably doesn't matter much. I was just going to scale its dimensions from the plans, and fit it so that it looks about the same as it does on the drawings. > > Can't help you with the mm equivalent for 3/16" plate for your 36-footer. For my 26-footer the hull was shown as 10 gauge (1/8"?) and cabinsides and cabintops as 12 gauge (3/32"?). Here in Australia only metric sizes are available too, as is the case in Europe. I asked Brent the same question, and he said to use 3mm for the hull (with 4mm in the bilge area - this is the "add-on" piece that's welded on when the hull sheets are still flat on the ground), 5mm for the skeg, 6mm for the twin keels, and 3mm for the deck, cabinsides and cabintops. Those are the sheet thicknesses I've used. From postings here and the plans I have for the BS26, it seems that in general, the cross-sectional area of components for the 26 are about 2/3 to 3/4 those of the 36 (duh), so when in doubt, I've used that as a guide. Likewise one could scale up 1.3 - 1.5x from the BS26 scantlings you mentioned to get a reasonable dimension for an item on a BS36, though nothing beats Brent's specific advice. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > __________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "boatwayupnorth" wrote: > > > > Brent, regarding the flat bar reinforcement at the inside of the stem: In the plans the only place where I found this indicated is in drawing 3. It seems that the flatbar is to be welded in from the underside of the anchor well downwards. It doesnt say how far down this flatbar is supposed to continue. It also seems that the flatbar has to be bend or cut to fit. Is this correct? If this is not too clear I would be happy to post a picture from this part of the drawing if that is ok with you. > > > > I was also wondering about what looks like a big gusset between skeg and keel (for the fin keeler). In the photo section this is visible in the Ocean Pearl and the Austin Hull album. It is indicated in drawings 1 and 6 of the plans you have send me, but there is no detailed drawing with any measurements. Could you provide this? > > > > And while I am at it: Here in Europe, steel plate is available as either 4 or 5 mm. 3/16 is equivalent to 4,76 mm. I know you said before that you would recommend 4mm for your 31. Would you rule out going down to 4 mm for the 36? > > Thanks > > Walter > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > Jim > > > I just checked your latest post on Gauss curve. Looks good. > > > Where it suggested my hulls need reinforcement ,there is a lot of reinforcement. > > ... > > > The stem has a 2 inch by half inch flat bar on edge, welded inside. > __________________________________________________________ > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25345|25345|2011-02-14 15:49:39|PnkBabe899|Herreshoff Marco Polo|I happened to stumble on this group via a search for Marco Polo and want to offer input if anyone is interested in the model. I built one in the 70's and sailed her about 50,000 miles, with just my wife as crew. In 1982, we were the only boat over 40' that survived one of the Tahatian hurricanes in an anchorage just south of Papeete....Nothing like a strong boat with good anchor gear! ... Veteran '66-68| 25346|25244|2011-02-14 16:14:36|brentswain38|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|The keel on the single keel 36 is 12 feet long and 18 inches wide. There is a 3/16th plate bulkhead at the aft end of the ballast-water tank, going to the bottom of the keel,fully welded both sides, and a baffle 4 feet wide, halfway along going a foot down into the keel. The aft end of the keel is connected to the skeg by a 6 inch deep piece of half inch plate. Thus the total tensile strength of the steel attaching the single keel to the hull is around 8 million pounds tensile strength , on a 5700 lb keel! On the twin keelers, the steel connecting the keels to the hull is 3.6 million pounds tensile strength, per keel, plus the tensile strength of the four 3x3x1/2 inch angles per keel, connecting the keel to the chine and centreline . And you say this keel fell off? When? The last time the tooth faery came to visit? As I pointed out in a previous post, deck beams, along the direction of the curve, add a lot more strength to a cabin top curve than longitudinals do, by maintaining the curve. The same is true of longitudinals along, and maintaining the curve of a hull. Thus longitudinals on 12 to 16 inch centres do a lot more to resist buckling than transverse frames on three foot centres, which only stiffen the plate a couple of inches either side of the frame. However , when Jean Marc's 55 foot aluminium origami boat has cruised enough miles in the Hecate Strait area, year round, to have completed several circumnavigations, with zero evidence of any buckling, then there is zero chance of it becoming an issue on a 40 footer and even less on a 36. When a 36, with far lighter stiffeners than I do today, could survive 16 days in huge surf on the west coast of the Baja, with zero evidence of buckling, and can survive T-boning a steel barge at hull speed, with zero evidence of buckling, and another can pound across 30 yards of Fijian coral reef in big surf and be pulled off by a tug in the same surf, then collide with a freighter in Gibralter, with zero evidence of buckling, then the "design with service records " provision in ABS rules definitely applies in spades. Buckling has proved a non issue in the last 30 years, and never will happen. There is simply not enough momentum in the size of boats we are dealing with. That has been proven time and time again. Thanks for the opportunity to address these myths. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "arctichusky44" wrote: > > > Ha ha you are hilarious! As soon as someone mentions an item contrary to the origami philosophy of being infallible and indestructive he is challenged whereas no-one ever questions Brent's sometime's outlandish claims. A major number of the statements made on this site are exactly what you you call them,"stories" and I would tend to wave he b.s. flag on many of them.When you rely on hearsay to formulate a credible opinion of something,the results are oftn less than promised. I am not saying that Brent's boats or the origami method is less or more than what meets the eye but we need a clear an unbiased opinion on the process. What I was trying to point out is that when a statement is made to the group that "there has ever been a case of structural failure,period" then if someone has info contrary to that, it should also be stated. So, I am just telling another of the hundreds of "stories" on here. I also think that the 36 foot origami hulls and smaller are truly great boats. I think when the design exceeds 40 feet, a whole new set of rules apply. Can they be built with a single chine, do you now need to add a way more structural integrity to the fold up plan,are structural bulkheads needed ,etc I know that it is a dreaded word here but at some point some engineering should be done or the whole boat can be a floppy noodle in the water. I remmber a ship I used to work on years ago and it was so poorly designed that it undulated over every wave and once it started to shake fore and aft it had to be slowed down to stop the flopping. It just didn't have enough fore and aft members to give it strength. This is why I think your analysis is good, Wild. Gives some empirical basis to the process. Anyways, have fun with your building or at least the dreams of it. > Frank. > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > Frank, > > > > As a reader of the group, I am interested in good examples as well as failures. But, Frank, you need to make yourself clear as well. You are NOT telling "facts". You are telling "stories". You saw the hull? Pictures with a date please ;) You saw it again, still there? Pictures! Did you actually see how it got there? At least that hull is on the beach, not on the bottom of the sea. > > > > Crack under the engine's bead leaking? Pictures? Did you advise the owner to do repair right away? Or did owner said "I am sailing anyway!" > > > > Were it latest or earlier designs? > > > > And I am not picking on you Frank. All information is appreciated. > > > > This is normal process of design evolution. If there are some problems, it need to be fixed. As I remember, these examples were brought up before, and Brent explained how he fixed it. That what I am interested in. What was the problem, what was the solution. > > > > On other hand... Most of the boat are DIY. Some people think that if they put more frames, boat will be more reliable. It could be quite opposite for "origami" hull. The same with HOW the frames and reinforcement are done. Etc, etc, etc.... > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "arctichusky44" wrote: > > > > > > First off, I think Brent should include a primer in navigation and safe watchkeeping with his book with all these collisions and groundings.Again this is just word of mouth and of course the numbers keep changing and getting bigger or smaller as needed. I think Brent needs to come clean on something and that is that one of the 36'ers never came off the Baja beach. It got thoroughly smashed until the keel hinged off then it filled with sand. Its still there! Another one of the hulls had some serious cracking under the engine bed where the stringers were welded to the hull. I saw the water seeping in myself. THESE are facts. regards ,Frank > > > | 25347|25244|2011-02-14 16:19:37|brentswain38|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|Taking the transverse to the first chine makes a huge difference, as the chine is the structural equivalent of a longitudinal bulkhead. I had nothing to do with the design of that boat. On the 36, we found that taking the transverse webs across the skeg to the start of the rounded portion of the stern make a huge difference in the stiffness of the skeg. The rounded part is the same, or more, in terms of stiffness, as a chine. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "arctichusky44" wrote: > > The two boats built in Pt.Hardy are actually 50 footers. There is a fellow in Courtenay building a 55ft triple chine origami pilot house cutter now. according to him that after talking with Harvey it was stongly advised to add lots more structural material. I believe that he has put cross blocking (transverse) between all the longitudinals to stop them from tripping and to carry the loads of the keel and chainplates up the hull sides. I think he told me that he never welded the tranverse to the hull skin , only to the longitudinals. I hven't checed in for while with him but it must be nearing completion soon. > Frank > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > No one has ever claimed they have never had a structural failure, only that none has ever had a structural failure at sea. > > The biggest origami boats that I'm aware of are a couple of aluminium 55 footers built in Port Hardy. I saw one leaving Xmas Island a few years back , heading back to BC in November. The owner loves gale force winds in Hecate strait. He has sailed enough miles in that area to have completed several circumnavigations. You can meet him at old Bella Bella. > > Harvey, a west coast geoduck diver, has the other one. Neither has transverse frames ,neither has had any structural problems, whatever. > > When you put stiffeners in , you have the choice of longitudinal or transverse. On a hard chine hull, with the only curves being longitudinal, amidships , longitudinals running along the curve are far more effective, as they help maintain the curve. Transverse only stiffen the plate for a couple of inches either side of the transverse frames. For the same reason, transverse beams are far more effective on a cabin top than longitudinals. > > There is nothing quite as effective as a sheet metal model, to make this clear in 3D. > > If I wanted added stiffness in a bigger boat, I would consider more or bigger longitudinals as being far more effective. The opposite would be true in a round bilged boat. Slab sided power boats are an entirely different scenario. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "arctichusky44" wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ha ha you are hilarious! As soon as someone mentions an item contrary to the origami philosophy of being infallible and indestructive he is challenged whereas no-one ever questions Brent's sometime's outlandish claims. A major number of the statements made on this site are exactly what you you call them,"stories" and I would tend to wave he b.s. flag on many of them.When you rely on hearsay to formulate a credible opinion of something,the results are oftn less than promised. I am not saying that Brent's boats or the origami method is less or more than what meets the eye but we need a clear an unbiased opinion on the process. What I was trying to point out is that when a statement is made to the group that "there has ever been a case of structural failure,period" then if someone has info contrary to that, it should also be stated. So, I am just telling another of the hundreds of "stories" on here. I also think that the 36 foot origami hulls and smaller are truly great boats. I think when the design exceeds 40 feet, a whole new set of rules apply. Can they be built with a single chine, do you now need to add a way more structural integrity to the fold up plan,are structural bulkheads needed ,etc I know that it is a dreaded word here but at some point some engineering should be done or the whole boat can be a floppy noodle in the water. I remmber a ship I used to work on years ago and it was so poorly designed that it undulated over every wave and once it started to shake fore and aft it had to be slowed down to stop the flopping. It just didn't have enough fore and aft members to give it strength. This is why I think your analysis is good, Wild. Gives some empirical basis to the process. Anyways, have fun with your building or at least the dreams of it. > > > Frank. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > Frank, > > > > > > > > As a reader of the group, I am interested in good examples as well as failures. But, Frank, you need to make yourself clear as well. You are NOT telling "facts". You are telling "stories". You saw the hull? Pictures with a date please ;) You saw it again, still there? Pictures! Did you actually see how it got there? At least that hull is on the beach, not on the bottom of the sea. > > > > > > > > Crack under the engine's bead leaking? Pictures? Did you advise the owner to do repair right away? Or did owner said "I am sailing anyway!" > > > > > > > > Were it latest or earlier designs? > > > > > > > > And I am not picking on you Frank. All information is appreciated. > > > > > > > > This is normal process of design evolution. If there are some problems, it need to be fixed. As I remember, these examples were brought up before, and Brent explained how he fixed it. That what I am interested in. What was the problem, what was the solution. > > > > > > > > On other hand... Most of the boat are DIY. Some people think that if they put more frames, boat will be more reliable. It could be quite opposite for "origami" hull. The same with HOW the frames and reinforcement are done. Etc, etc, etc.... > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "arctichusky44" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > First off, I think Brent should include a primer in navigation and safe watchkeeping with his book with all these collisions and groundings.Again this is just word of mouth and of course the numbers keep changing and getting bigger or smaller as needed. I think Brent needs to come clean on something and that is that one of the 36'ers never came off the Baja beach. It got thoroughly smashed until the keel hinged off then it filled with sand. Its still there! Another one of the hulls had some serious cracking under the engine bed where the stringers were welded to the hull. I saw the water seeping in myself. THESE are facts. regards ,Frank > > > > > > > > > > | 25348|25279|2011-02-14 16:25:35|brentswain38|Re: flex couplling|Solid mounting definitely means more noise and vibration, with far more reliability, and less breakdown of anything connected to the engine, as it moves far less. Mine is mounted on cutting board plastic, with PVC bushings and washers,to eliminate the metal to metal contact with the mounting bolts. If I take the engine out, then remount it, I get a few hours of running, before it's time to retighten the bolts, then it can run forever without the need for any further tightening. I wired my mounting bolts the way helicopter bolts are wired, to eliminate any chance of them coming loose. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, aaron riis wrote: > > > I want to have my engine as far aft as I can, thinking about a short floating stuffing box without a flex coupling, the shaft will be less than 4 feet total.  some people say that that increases vibration, but Brent's book talks about solidly mounting the engine.  what do you think?  Aaron > --- On Thu, 2/10/11, brentswain38 wrote: > > > From: brentswain38 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 5:53 PM > > >   > > > > At the first opportunity. I like to tack a bit of steel on , connecting one corner of the zinc to the hull, guaranteeing electrical connection. Too much weld makes the straps hard to remove. The ss bolts give the strength you need, the tack is only to guarantee electrical connection. > Wooden boat builders wouldn't go to sea without wood working tools on board. Would it make sense for steel boat cruisers to not have an alternator welder aboard, when they cost under $50? > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I usually put one Z3 centred on the bottom of the rudder and one each side of the keel- skeg plate. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > > > Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. All the best, MarkH > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25349|25244|2011-02-14 16:45:09|brentswain38|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|Every frame is a hard spot. Every chine is a hard spot. Every welded bulkhead is a hard spot. Every keel hull joint is a hard a spot. Every skeg hull joint is a hard spot. Every hull deck joint is a hard a spot. There is no avoiding hard spots. With aluminiumn being as light as it is , you can weld a lot of watertight bulkheads in, without adding too much weight. With the weight of steel, you have to use whatever tanks, etc, you have, and any chines shapes, etc, you have ,to take the place of simply welding in any more metal, wherever you please. Putting in useless gussets , frames etc, are the main reason some claim that steel is impractical for boats under 40 feet. That is only the case if you turn a blind eye to the use of shape and other components, to take the place of framing and other useless extra metal.This also lets us build far more affordably and much fairer hulls than was common with over framed, and over welded hulls. Lack of transverse frames is the reason several of my boats have withstood severe groundings, without looking like a starved dog afterwards, and remained as fair as the day they were built. Had they been fully framed, the plate would have been permanently pounded around the frames. Framless also lets you use heavier hull plating , which also drastically improves fairness, resistance to corrosion and reduces weld distortion. A friend was given a 34 ft Saugeen Witch, which was a write off, due to having only 1/8th inch plate, corroded too thin . Weight of steel in frames didn't help him any there. Had she been 3/16th, she could have cruised for a few more decades. My boat was launched a month after the steel arrived. I then did ten days detailing, ten days painting , then ten days rigging , before going for a sail . Ask Greg how long his boat has taken him so far. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "arctichusky44" wrote: > > what I don understand Brent, is what is the difference in transverse members between continuous framing and the occational bulheads ie" tank ends,baffles etc. Each of these create hard spots on the hull. I would think it only needs one hard spot to create a crack in the plating. Why not just add alot of them and go for the extra strength? > Greg , in Courtenay, building the big alloy hull has four watertight compartments and lots of transfer framing on his theoretical origami hull; Where do you draw the line? He jut sent me some pics and it all looks impressive and appropriate. > Frank > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Jim > > I just checked your latest post on Gauss curve. Looks good. > > Where it suggested my hulls need reinforcement ,there is a lot of reinforcement. Along the bulwark there is the hull deck joint, a huge, fully welded steel bulkhead equivalent, structurally. > > In the midships centreline area, there is the water tank top, a four foot wide piece of 3/16th plate, parallel to the waterline, and it's ends and baffles.It too is the equivalent of a fully welded steel bulkhead , structurally. > > In the twin keel version, there are also four 3 inch by 3 inch by half inch angle irons per side, taking the weight of the keels from the chine to the tank top edge. > > The stem has a 2 inch by half inch flat bar on edge, welded inside. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > Thanks . Wish I had that quote last summer. I have always believed the calculations should always be compared with what has worked in the real world, and in the case of a discrepancy, the later should be given more weight. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > ABS does not take into an account effect of the shape on small sailboat. And this is justifiable by ABS (or any other marine standard). All scantling rules came from boat/ships with service records. Failures were analyzed, improvements made, rules created. ABS will accept different scantling rules on case_to_case basis - means "design with service records" OR "supported by engineering data/calculations for new design" > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I noticed that ABS rules don't take into account the huge effect of curvature on stiffness, making them totally meaningless on well curved hulls, such as sailing hulls. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | 25350|25244|2011-02-14 16:49:48|brentswain38|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|Nothing near as effective as making a sheet metal model, in clarifying what supports what. Twist and deform it, in the bare hull stage, then with the decks on, then the cabin on , etc, etc. What supports what, and where more is needed, becomes very obvious, especially for those with an inability to visualize stresses in 3D. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > This is very interesting subject. I need to check the standard, but as I remember, longitudinal frames are recommended for small boat. It is not recommended to use transverse frames (the way it done on big ships) for metal boats, but requires transverse reinforcement by others means. As I understand it (I could be wrong and need to check again) that what you describe "transverse reinforcement welded on longitudinals" is a regular practice for "non-origami" boats. Might be good practice on origami hull as well. > > The subject gets even more complicated, because we are talking about sailboat - which has more stress on the hull than regular boat. > > I am still puzzled how to make watertight bulkhead (if I want one) without welding it to the hull's skin (at least collar for it). > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "arctichusky44" wrote: > > > > I think he told me that he never welded the tranverse to the hull skin , only to the longitudinals. > > > > Frank > | 25351|25279|2011-02-14 16:54:11|brentswain38|Re: zinc attachment|I find the engine driven alternator welder does the job just fine. Those industrial" Miller Roughneck" welders are just a big alternator. Truck supplies have bigger alternators. If they are cheap enough used , carry a spare. Plug in welders can be bought anywhere. Change yours into cash, then change it back again, if and when you have the need. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > I want to bring my Lincoln welder with me in my boat.. a little big but could be usefull for major modifications when far away(as long if they have same electricity grid overthere)... > > > Martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:53:14 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the first opportunity. I like to tack a bit of steel on , connecting one corner of the zinc to the hull, guaranteeing electrical connection. Too much weld makes the straps hard to remove. The ss bolts give the strength you need, the tack is only to guarantee electrical connection. > > Wooden boat builders wouldn't go to sea without wood working tools on board. Would it make sense for steel boat cruisers to not have an alternator welder aboard, when they cost under $50? > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I usually put one Z3 centred on the bottom of the rudder and one each side of the keel- skeg plate. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > > > > > Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. All the best, MarkH > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25352|25243|2011-02-14 17:00:14|brentswain38|Re: Technical notes for boatbuilding|In nearly 40 years of cruising, I've met a lot of people cruising in boats over 50 feet, but have seen very few with watertight bulkheads. On fibreglass or wooden boats , being far more prone to holing , or aluminium boats, being far more prone to surprise corrosion or weld failure, they are probably a good idea. On huge steel boats they are probably a good idea, but on smaller boats, they may be redundant. They are extremely hard to weld in, without a serious ridge on the hull plating, or a hard spot, which greatly increases the odds of holing at that spot.. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Quote from ABS "RULES FOR BUILDING AND CLASSING STEEL VESSELS UNDER 90 METERS (295 FEET) IN LENGTH" > > 2011 PART 3 HULL CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT" (part3.pdf page 78) > > PART 3 > > CHAPTER 2 Hull Structures and Arrangements > SECTION 7 Watertight Bulkheads and Doors > > 1 General > > All vessels having lengths, L, equal to or exceeding 15 m (50 ft) are to be provided with watertight bulkheads in accordance with this section. The plans submitted are to clearly show the location and extent of each watertight bulkhead. Watertight bulkheads constructed in accordance with the Rules will be recorded in the Record as WT (watertight), the symbols being prefixed in each case by the number of such bulkheads. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > Some information (rules, recommendations) for building offshore metal boat (including welding). Looks useful. > > > > http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/appmanager/absEagle/absEagleDesktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=abs_eagle_portal_rules_guides_download_page&nodePath=%2FBEA+Repository%2FRules%26Guides%2FCurrent%2F37_OffshoreRacingYachts > > > > http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/appmanager/absEagle/absEagleDesktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=abs_eagle_portal_rules_guides_download_page&nodePath=%2FBEA+Repository%2FRules%26Guides%2FCurrent%2F5_Under90_2011 > > > | 25353|25244|2011-02-14 17:11:00|brentswain38|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|The stem bar goes to half a meter below the waterline, where the V is deepest, and impact is most likely. Any impact below that is a glancing blow . It can be bent from flat bar, or cut from keel bottom scraps. Being in the deep V it is in , it is completely under compression, and can't go anywhere. I bent mine up from a flat bar, with a hydraulic jack, under a huge bolder. The size of the skeg gusset is not important, as it is a huge overkill, spreading impacts with the skeg over a much larger section of hull centreline. I make it 6 inches deep on the single keeler, radiused into gussets on both ends, on the single keeler, and the aft end on the twin keeler, as the photos show. I wouldn't rule out 4mm on the 36, just be extremely careful to avoid welding distortion, on the lighter plate. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "boatwayupnorth" wrote: > > > > > > > Brent, regarding the flat bar reinforcement at the inside of the stem: In the plans the only place where I found this indicated is in drawing 3. It seems that the flatbar is to be welded in from the underside of the anchor well downwards. It doesnt say how far down this flatbar is supposed to continue. It also seems that the flatbar has to be bend or cut to fit. Is this correct? If this is not too clear I would be happy to post a picture from this part of the drawing if that is ok with you. > > I was also wondering about what looks like a big gusset between skeg and keel (for the fin keeler). In the photo section this is visible in the Ocean Pearl and the Austin Hull album. It is indicated in drawings 1 and 6 of the plans you have send me, but there is no detailed drawing with any measurements. Could you provide this? > > And while I am at it: Here in Europe, steel plate is available as either 4 or 5 mm. 3/16 is equivalent to 4,76 mm. I know you said before that you would recommend 4mm for your 31. Would you rule out going down to 4 mm for the 36? > Thanks > Walter > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Jim > > I just checked your latest post on Gauss curve. Looks good. > > Where it suggested my hulls need reinforcement ,there is a lot of reinforcement. > ... > > The stem has a 2 inch by half inch flat bar on edge, welded inside. > > > | 25354|25244|2011-02-14 17:15:59|brentswain38|Re: Shell buckling etc sacrifycing a BS for test|If your boat is spray foamed , the spray foam will slow down to a tiny trickle , the flow of any water around a bulkhead, if the door is watertight. Urethane caulking will work on a close fitting bulkhead, which is not fully welded to the hull. You can lightly weld below the waterline, where fairness is not as big an issue. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > So, according to ABS rules, watertight bulkhead is NOT required on vessel under 15m, but MUST for vessels from 15m (~49ft) to 90m (~295ft) > > But you can make one if you want. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > I am still puzzled how to make watertight bulkhead (if I want one) without welding it to the hull's skin (at least collar for it). > > > | 25355|25244|2011-02-14 17:25:43|brentswain38|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|I only use a series of 4 inch welds on 12 inch centres ,on the stem bar, then fill the gap with epoxy tar, when painting her. Being in the deep V that it's in, the stem bar can't go sideways, or any other direction, as it is totally under compression in an impact. That is why making it up from scraps is just as strong as any single piece would be. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Walter ... > > Although you're building a 36-footer, for following comments about my 26-footer might be useful for comparison: > > For my 26-footer the reinforcement at the inside of the stem isn't indicated anywhere on the plans themselves; but it is noted on page 36 on Brent's book, where it says it's made from 1/2" PL x 2". I guess the "PL" means it should be cut from 1/2" plate? It would be cheaper/easier if a 1/2" x 2" flat bar could be bent to shape for this - has anybody done it that way? From past comments made in this group I understand that this reinforcement is an important part of the boat's structure. I don't know how far down it's supposed to go; but I vaguely remember from earlier messages that it only goes down as far as the waterline. Will be looking forward to Brent's confirmation (or otherwise). Also: to prevent rusting between the forward 1/2" edge of the 1/2" x 2" reinforcement and the aft (inside) face of the stem, I assume the weld on this reinforcement would have to be continuous and airtight? > > Although my 26-footer will have twin keels, it also has a big gusset forward of the skeg. Its aft edge is about half the height of the forward face of the skeg, and its most forward point is where it tapers off (on the hull centerline) about in line with the aft face of the twin keels. My plans show it as being cut from 1/2" plate. My plans don't show any dimensions for it either, so its precise shape probably doesn't matter much. I was just going to scale its dimensions from the plans, and fit it so that it looks about the same as it does on the drawings. > > Can't help you with the mm equivalent for 3/16" plate for your 36-footer. For my 26-footer the hull was shown as 10 gauge (1/8"?) and cabinsides and cabintops as 12 gauge (3/32"?). Here in Australia only metric sizes are available too, as is the case in Europe. I asked Brent the same question, and he said to use 3mm for the hull (with 4mm in the bilge area - this is the "add-on" piece that's welded on when the hull sheets are still flat on the ground), 5mm for the skeg, 6mm for the twin keels, and 3mm for the deck, cabinsides and cabintops. Those are the sheet thicknesses I've used. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "boatwayupnorth" wrote: > > > > Brent, regarding the flat bar reinforcement at the inside of the stem: In the plans the only place where I found this indicated is in drawing 3. It seems that the flatbar is to be welded in from the underside of the anchor well downwards. It doesnt say how far down this flatbar is supposed to continue. It also seems that the flatbar has to be bend or cut to fit. Is this correct? If this is not too clear I would be happy to post a picture from this part of the drawing if that is ok with you. > > > > I was also wondering about what looks like a big gusset between skeg and keel (for the fin keeler). In the photo section this is visible in the Ocean Pearl and the Austin Hull album. It is indicated in drawings 1 and 6 of the plans you have send me, but there is no detailed drawing with any measurements. Could you provide this? > > > > And while I am at it: Here in Europe, steel plate is available as either 4 or 5 mm. 3/16 is equivalent to 4,76 mm. I know you said before that you would recommend 4mm for your 31. Would you rule out going down to 4 mm for the 36? > > Thanks > > Walter > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > Jim > > > I just checked your latest post on Gauss curve. Looks good. > > > Where it suggested my hulls need reinforcement ,there is a lot of reinforcement. > > ... > > > The stem has a 2 inch by half inch flat bar on edge, welded inside. > ______________________________________________________________ > | 25356|25279|2011-02-14 17:43:50|martin demers|Re: zinc attachment|Brent, can you do a big job with an alternator welder? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:54:02 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment I find the engine driven alternator welder does the job just fine. Those industrial" Miller Roughneck" welders are just a big alternator. Truck supplies have bigger alternators. If they are cheap enough used , carry a spare. Plug in welders can be bought anywhere. Change yours into cash, then change it back again, if and when you have the need. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > I want to bring my Lincoln welder with me in my boat.. a little big but could be usefull for major modifications when far away(as long if they have same electricity grid overthere)... > > > Martin. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:53:14 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the first opportunity. I like to tack a bit of steel on , connecting one corner of the zinc to the hull, guaranteeing electrical connection. Too much weld makes the straps hard to remove. The ss bolts give the strength you need, the tack is only to guarantee electrical connection. > > Wooden boat builders wouldn't go to sea without wood working tools on board. Would it make sense for steel boat cruisers to not have an alternator welder aboard, when they cost under $50? > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I usually put one Z3 centred on the bottom of the rudder and one each side of the keel- skeg plate. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > > > > > Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. All the best, 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] | 25357|25279|2011-02-14 17:55:01|brentswain38|Re: zinc attachment|Yes , if it is a big enough alternator. Check out to see what kind they use on the Miller Roughneck welder.Maybe you can buy just the alternator from them. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > can you do a big job with an alternator welder? > > Martin. > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:54:02 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find the engine driven alternator welder does the job just fine. Those industrial" Miller Roughneck" welders are just a big alternator. > > Truck supplies have bigger alternators. If they are cheap enough used , carry a spare. > > Plug in welders can be bought anywhere. Change yours into cash, then change it back again, if and when you have the need. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > I want to bring my Lincoln welder with me in my boat.. a little big but could be usefull for major modifications when far away(as long if they have same electricity grid overthere)... > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:53:14 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the first opportunity. I like to tack a bit of steel on , connecting one corner of the zinc to the hull, guaranteeing electrical connection. Too much weld makes the straps hard to remove. The ss bolts give the strength you need, the tack is only to guarantee electrical connection. > > > > > > Wooden boat builders wouldn't go to sea without wood working tools on board. Would it make sense for steel boat cruisers to not have an alternator welder aboard, when they cost under $50? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I usually put one Z3 centred on the bottom of the rudder and one each side of the keel- skeg plate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. All the best, 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] > | 25358|25279|2011-02-14 18:06:51|martin demers|Re: zinc attachment|Brent, I saw a picture of the Miller Roughneck, it is quite big. How do you connect it to the boat engine? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:54:51 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment Yes , if it is a big enough alternator. Check out to see what kind they use on the Miller Roughneck welder.Maybe you can buy just the alternator from them. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > can you do a big job with an alternator welder? > > Martin. > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:54:02 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find the engine driven alternator welder does the job just fine. Those industrial" Miller Roughneck" welders are just a big alternator. > > Truck supplies have bigger alternators. If they are cheap enough used , carry a spare. > > Plug in welders can be bought anywhere. Change yours into cash, then change it back again, if and when you have the need. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > I want to bring my Lincoln welder with me in my boat.. a little big but could be usefull for major modifications when far away(as long if they have same electricity grid overthere)... > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:53:14 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the first opportunity. I like to tack a bit of steel on , connecting one corner of the zinc to the hull, guaranteeing electrical connection. Too much weld makes the straps hard to remove. The ss bolts give the strength you need, the tack is only to guarantee electrical connection. > > > > > > Wooden boat builders wouldn't go to sea without wood working tools on board. Would it make sense for steel boat cruisers to not have an alternator welder aboard, when they cost under $50? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I usually put one Z3 centred on the bottom of the rudder and one each side of the keel- skeg plate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. All the best, 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] | 25359|25279|2011-02-14 18:25:27|brentswain38|Re: zinc attachment|I'd use a belt drive. Those toothed belts would work well. Mine is outside the engine compartment, with a removable panel to put the belt thru. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > I saw a picture of the Miller Roughneck, it is quite big. How do you connect it to the boat engine? > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:54:51 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes , if it is a big enough alternator. Check out to see what kind they use on the Miller Roughneck welder.Maybe you can buy just the alternator from them. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > can you do a big job with an alternator welder? > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:54:02 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find the engine driven alternator welder does the job just fine. Those industrial" Miller Roughneck" welders are just a big alternator. > > > > > > Truck supplies have bigger alternators. If they are cheap enough used , carry a spare. > > > > > > Plug in welders can be bought anywhere. Change yours into cash, then change it back again, if and when you have the need. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to bring my Lincoln welder with me in my boat.. a little big but could be usefull for major modifications when far away(as long if they have same electricity grid overthere)... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:53:14 +0000 > > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the first opportunity. I like to tack a bit of steel on , connecting one corner of the zinc to the hull, guaranteeing electrical connection. Too much weld makes the straps hard to remove. The ss bolts give the strength you need, the tack is only to guarantee electrical connection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wooden boat builders wouldn't go to sea without wood working tools on board. Would it make sense for steel boat cruisers to not have an alternator welder aboard, when they cost under $50? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I usually put one Z3 centred on the bottom of the rudder and one each side of the keel- skeg plate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. All the best, 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] > | 25360|25279|2011-02-14 18:26:29|brentswain38|Re: zinc attachment|The alternator alone is much smaller than the welder, complete. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > I saw a picture of the Miller Roughneck, it is quite big. How do you connect it to the boat engine? > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:54:51 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes , if it is a big enough alternator. Check out to see what kind they use on the Miller Roughneck welder.Maybe you can buy just the alternator from them. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > can you do a big job with an alternator welder? > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:54:02 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find the engine driven alternator welder does the job just fine. Those industrial" Miller Roughneck" welders are just a big alternator. > > > > > > Truck supplies have bigger alternators. If they are cheap enough used , carry a spare. > > > > > > Plug in welders can be bought anywhere. Change yours into cash, then change it back again, if and when you have the need. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to bring my Lincoln welder with me in my boat.. a little big but could be usefull for major modifications when far away(as long if they have same electricity grid overthere)... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:53:14 +0000 > > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the first opportunity. I like to tack a bit of steel on , connecting one corner of the zinc to the hull, guaranteeing electrical connection. Too much weld makes the straps hard to remove. The ss bolts give the strength you need, the tack is only to guarantee electrical connection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wooden boat builders wouldn't go to sea without wood working tools on board. Would it make sense for steel boat cruisers to not have an alternator welder aboard, when they cost under $50? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I usually put one Z3 centred on the bottom of the rudder and one each side of the keel- skeg plate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. All the best, 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] > | 25361|25279|2011-02-14 18:30:58|martin demers|Re: zinc attachment|I am presently using an old Lincoln engine driven welder/generator(225 Amp.) I could probably use the alternator from my unit. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 23:26:20 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment The alternator alone is much smaller than the welder, complete. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > I saw a picture of the Miller Roughneck, it is quite big. How do you connect it to the boat engine? > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:54:51 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes , if it is a big enough alternator. Check out to see what kind they use on the Miller Roughneck welder.Maybe you can buy just the alternator from them. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > can you do a big job with an alternator welder? > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:54:02 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find the engine driven alternator welder does the job just fine. Those industrial" Miller Roughneck" welders are just a big alternator. > > > > > > Truck supplies have bigger alternators. If they are cheap enough used , carry a spare. > > > > > > Plug in welders can be bought anywhere. Change yours into cash, then change it back again, if and when you have the need. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to bring my Lincoln welder with me in my boat.. a little big but could be usefull for major modifications when far away(as long if they have same electricity grid overthere)... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:53:14 +0000 > > > > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the first opportunity. I like to tack a bit of steel on , connecting one corner of the zinc to the hull, guaranteeing electrical connection. Too much weld makes the straps hard to remove. The ss bolts give the strength you need, the tack is only to guarantee electrical connection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wooden boat builders wouldn't go to sea without wood working tools on board. Would it make sense for steel boat cruisers to not have an alternator welder aboard, when they cost under $50? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I usually put one Z3 centred on the bottom of the rudder and one each side of the keel- skeg plate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. All the best, 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] | 25362|25362|2011-02-15 12:09:03|rupertnimrod|trailer?|Brent.....Looking to haul Haiku to our property, I remember you saying there might be a trailer for cheap down island..shoot me an e-mail;or give me a shout thanks tom| 25363|25362|2011-02-15 15:52:26|brentswain38|Re: trailer?|Tom The trailer is still there, in Royston, at least it was a week or two ago. Mark Hammil, who bought Terry's old boat, is interested in it. Tires are still good ,but the brakes need work. It is a bit awkward to use for a twin keeler, but could be done. Ask Mark Hammil if he wants to do a partnership, or rent it to you. If all brentboat ownerts in the area owned it, as a co-op, their haulouts would be very cheap, and easy to do. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "rupertnimrod" wrote: > > Brent.....Looking to haul Haiku to our property, I remember you saying there might be a trailer for cheap down island..shoot me an e-mail;or give me a shout thanks tom > | 25364|25243|2011-02-15 16:12:46|brentswain38|Re: Technical notes for boatbuilding|I can't remember where, but somewhere here ,it was posted that some scantling rules evaluate the stiffness at 15% structural advantage. Lock your fingers together, then put an egg horizontally between your palms. Put even, increasing pressure on the ends of the egg, ( the long way, not the sides) and see how much it takes to break it. Then compare that to what it would take to break a flat piece of egg shell the same thickness. The difference is far more than 15%. The difference is the structural advantage of shape. Take a flat piece of 6ft by 14 ft 10 guage plate supported by it's 4 sides . Stand on it, and see how much it bends. Then try the same with the same plate in the shape of a cabin top on a 36, with a 7 inch camber. The difference is far more than 15%. Calculations which only give shape a 15% structural advantage, are thus, grossly inaccurate. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Quote from ABS "RULES FOR BUILDING AND CLASSING STEEL VESSELS UNDER 90 METERS (295 FEET) IN LENGTH" > > 2011 PART 3 HULL CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT" (part3.pdf page 78) > > PART 3 > > CHAPTER 2 Hull Structures and Arrangements > SECTION 7 Watertight Bulkheads and Doors > > 1 General > > All vessels having lengths, L, equal to or exceeding 15 m (50 ft) are to be provided with watertight bulkheads in accordance with this section. The plans submitted are to clearly show the location and extent of each watertight bulkhead. Watertight bulkheads constructed in accordance with the Rules will be recorded in the Record as WT (watertight), the symbols being prefixed in each case by the number of such bulkheads. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > Some information (rules, recommendations) for building offshore metal boat (including welding). Looks useful. > > > > http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/appmanager/absEagle/absEagleDesktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=abs_eagle_portal_rules_guides_download_page&nodePath=%2FBEA+Repository%2FRules%26Guides%2FCurrent%2F37_OffshoreRacingYachts > > > > http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortalWEB/appmanager/absEagle/absEagleDesktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=abs_eagle_portal_rules_guides_download_page&nodePath=%2FBEA+Repository%2FRules%26Guides%2FCurrent%2F5_Under90_2011 > > > | 25365|25365|2011-02-15 16:44:36|martin|Hull stiffness|Just for fun I measured Prarie Maids 36ft. hull at a number of points while supported on her fin keel and four stands. Then I lowered the stands so she sat on keel alone. Not so much as a millimeter could be detected in flex at any of the numerous points I'd measured. I'd match her hull against any production boat. Any failures that might present it's self will be a welding issue and not in her design. I don't know why some here are so into all the paper issues. It's all been proven. Just build to your desire,wallet and time frame then enjoy. If second guessing a proven design is giving you ulcers and keeping you awake at night it's time to move on to something else in life. Martin..| 25366|25365|2011-02-15 17:54:03|wild_explorer|Re: Hull stiffness|The main point of the quotes from standards was: IF someone wants to certify origami boat (let say trough ABS), it would be much easier to fight bureaucrat by its own weapon - paper. See how they will feel more relaxed (right away) when you show them quotes from the same document they use ;)) People usually ask: "Why origami boat does not have bulkheads?" Now you can say: 1. It does not need it structurally (proven by service records) AND 2. Standard does not require it ;) Standard may not estimate stiffness of the form as we want for origami boat, but it DOES recognize effect of the hull shape on the strength of the hull. Origami hull is EXCEPTION from boat building practice - that why standard will not take it into an account and will recognize only "service records" for origami designs (as long as there is no engineering calculation presented). Common sense will not be taken into an account by bureaucrat if it is not approved by paper he/she use. Not because they are "bad", they just might have limited knowledge in some areas and they rely on "paper" in this case. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "martin" wrote: > > I don't know why some here are so into all the paper issues. It's all been proven. > Martin.. > | 25367|25244|2011-02-15 23:27:18|Kim|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|Hi Walter ... Glad you like the photo's of my 26-footer! It should be a great little boat when it's finished. So far it has been amazingly easy to put together. I only wish I had more free time to work on it! I see that in recent messages Brent has addressed the questions we raised. One excellent advantage of building a Brent boat is the fast and effective advice available from Brent and other members of this group! Cheers ... Kim. __________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "boatwayupnorth" wrote: > > Hi Kim, > Seems like you are on dry land again? Is life back to normal down under? Great progress you made on your 26! I follow your blog with envy. > The drawing on pg 36 in Brents booklet is the one in the plans I was referring to. You are right; of course, it says "plate", not "flatbar". I rechecked the materials list in the files section. For the 36 a piece of 18"x 12 ft x 1/2" plate is included. I thought this was for the keel sole, but maybe it's for the bow reinforcement and the gusset in front of the skeg as well. Hopefully that's another thing Brent can clear up. > By the way, the material list for the 26 does not include any ½" plate – see: http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/IP1YTcf8slEyDx2Gg_MTZ0tNcV-BpR1Q2VLmTMlNQVWrVorfKXukuPRu0zyKvHdfXp6WuioOm2SzlhWTRWCxc_wLedNFyWaHg-LQMg/Material%20List%20Swain%2026%27. > "I don't know how far down it's supposed to go; but I vaguely remember from earlier messages that it only goes down as far as the waterline." > I suppose the plate (or FB) has to be welded to the underside of the anchor well and the lower end has to end in a transverse floor to stabilize it? Much appreciated if anybody who has done this can comment. > "to prevent rusting between the forward 1/2" edge of the 1/2" x 2" reinforcement and the aft (inside) face of the stem, I assume the weld on this reinforcement would have to be continuous and airtight?" > Probably, but wouldn't that lead to a lot of potential distortion? > "Although my 26-footer will have twin keels, it also has a big gusset forward of the skeg. Its aft edge is about half the height of the forward face of the skeg, and its most forward point is where it tapers off (on the hull centerline) about in line with the aft face of the twin keels. My plans show it as being cut from 1/2" plate. My plans don't show any dimensions for it either, so its precise shape probably doesn't matter much. I was just going to scale its dimensions from the plans, and fit it so that it looks about the same as it does on the drawings." > You are probably right. In the plans I bought there are no dimensions at all and the shape that is indicated varies in the plans and diverse photos from finished boats. It's probably a matter of taste and guesswork. Hopefully Brent can give us some indication. > "Can't help you with the mm equivalent for 3/16" plate for your 36-footer. For my 26-footer the hull was shown as 10 gauge (1/8"?) and cabinsides and cabintops as 12 gauge (3/32"?)." > Maybe it's time to make an effort and translate all dimensions from imperial to metric? > Thank's for your input, Kim! Much appreciated! > Cheers > Walter __________________________________________________________ | 25368|25244|2011-02-15 23:29:33|Kim|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|Hi Richard ... Thanks for your comments re the stem reinforcement. How's construction on your 26 going? I think you mentioned once that you were going to extend its length a bit? Wouldn't mind seeing some photos of it if you have any online somewhere. Cheers ... Kim. __________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "rhko47" wrote: > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Walter ... > > > > Although you're building a 36-footer, for following comments about my 26-footer might be useful for comparison: > > > > For my 26-footer the reinforcement at the inside of the stem isn't indicated anywhere on the plans themselves; but it is noted on page 36 on Brent's book, where it says it's made from 1/2" PL x 2". I guess the "PL" means it should be cut from 1/2" plate? It would be cheaper/easier if a 1/2" x 2" flat bar could be bent to shape for this - has anybody done it that way? From past comments made in this group I understand that this reinforcement is an important part of the boat's structure. I don't know how far down it's supposed to go; but I vaguely remember from earlier messages that it only goes down as far as the waterline. Will be looking forward to Brent's confirmation (or otherwise) on that. Also: to prevent rusting between the forward 1/2" edge of the 1/2" x 2" reinforcement and the aft (inside) face of the stem, I assume the weld on this reinforcement would have to be continuous and airtight? > > I used 1/2" x 2" bar, bent to shape with a hydraulic bender. It runs from the underside of the anchor well down to about station 1, so that the maximum curve, just below the waterline, is in the middle of the bar. If you weld in this bar before the anchor well bottom, you can weld the upper end shut. In addition, just to neaten things up, I covered the top of that bar with a tailored piece of 1/8" plate from one side of the hull to the other. That should prevent any rusting inside. > > > > > Although my 26-footer will have twin keels, it also has a big gusset forward of the skeg. Its aft edge is about half the height of the forward face of the skeg, and its most forward point is where it tapers off (on the hull centerline) about in line with the aft face of the twin keels. My plans show it as being cut from 1/2" plate. My plans don't show any dimensions for it either, so its precise shape probably doesn't matter much. I was just going to scale its dimensions from the plans, and fit it so that it looks about the same as it does on the drawings. > > > > Can't help you with the mm equivalent for 3/16" plate for your 36-footer. For my 26-footer the hull was shown as 10 gauge (1/8"?) and cabinsides and cabintops as 12 gauge (3/32"?). Here in Australia only metric sizes are available too, as is the case in Europe. I asked Brent the same question, and he said to use 3mm for the hull (with 4mm in the bilge area - this is the "add-on" piece that's welded on when the hull sheets are still flat on the ground), 5mm for the skeg, 6mm for the twin keels, and 3mm for the deck, cabinsides and cabintops. Those are the sheet thicknesses I've used. > > From postings here and the plans I have for the BS26, it seems that in general, the cross-sectional area of components for the 26 are about 2/3 to 3/4 those of the 36 (duh), so when in doubt, I've used that as a guide. Likewise one could scale up 1.3 - 1.5x from the BS26 scantlings you mentioned to get a reasonable dimension for an item on a BS36, though nothing beats Brent's specific advice. > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht __________________________________________________________ | 25369|25244|2011-02-15 23:33:20|Kim|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|Thanks for the stem reinforcement details, Brent! I would have otherwise tried to weld in the stem reinforcement with a continuous airtight weld (to prevent corrosion in the gap between the aft face of the stem and the forward face of the 1/2" x 2" reinforcement piece). But if plenty of epoxy paint in there will do the job, then that will certainly make installing it a bit easier! Cheers ... Kim. __________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I only use a series of 4 inch welds on 12 inch centres ,on the stem bar, then fill the gap with epoxy tar, when painting her. Being in the deep V that it's in, the stem bar can't go sideways, or any other direction, as it is totally under compression in an impact. That is why making it up from scraps is just as strong as any single piece would be. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > The stem bar goes to half a meter below the waterline, where the V is deepest, and impact is most likely. Any impact below that is a glancing blow . It can be bent from flat bar, or cut from keel bottom scraps. Being in the deep V it is in , it is completely under compression, and can't go anywhere. I bent mine up from a flat bar, with a hydraulic jack, under a huge bolder. > The size of the skeg gusset is not important, as it is a huge overkill, spreading impacts with the skeg over a much larger section of hull centreline. I make it 6 inches deep on the single keeler, radiused into gussets on both ends, on the single keeler, and the aft end on the twin keeler, as the photos show. > I wouldn't rule out 4mm on the 36, just be extremely careful to avoid welding distortion, on the lighter plate. __________________________________________________________ | 25370|25365|2011-02-16 07:30:07|David Frantz|Re: Hull stiffness|There is little in this world that can't be improved. That has to be a quarter of my job at work ( automation maintenance ). Except for a few cases I don't think anybody here is dismissing the history of Origami design nor the ability to build a quality boat fairly quickly. Rather what I would hope for would be the development of a suite of software tools that would allow one to quickly verify new Origami designs. If you can start out with a good virtual model of what you want to build, you greatly reduce the time it takes to prove a design. Automation, CAD/CAM or whatever you want to call it doesn't or shouldn't replace real world testing and experience, it just helps you get to something new quicker. Another way to look at this is engineering in the sense of automation or process systems. I got in this industry early enough to see machines controlled by massive electrical panels filled with vacuum tubes and relays. Over more than thirty years in the industry I've seen systems graduate from discrete devices to the first logic controllers on to today's microprocessor controlled machines. Each technology innovation builds on the past and building requires progressively better tools. One starts out with pencil and paper, moves to a slide rule, then a hand held calculator, then to a computer and on from there. Better tools are enablers when used properly. As to ulcers I don't think anybody here is getting ulcers over the Origami concept. Seriously we are here because of an interest in the subject. The discussion is in many ways more interesting than the one about toilets, yet nobody raised concerns about people getting ulcers over that discussion. Maybe because every body has a need to take a dump from time to time. In this case you have a more limited number of people interested in the mechanics and strength of the designs. This is a very good thing as you want people to take an interest the concept to keep things moving forward. More importantly another generation of designers is always a good thing, after all designs live or die based upon peoples interest. In the end the more interest the better! David A Frantz websterindustro4at4mac.com Sent from my iPhone. On Feb 15, 2011, at 4:44 PM, martin wrote: > Just for fun I measured Prarie Maids 36ft. hull at a number of points while supported on her fin keel and four stands. Then I lowered the stands so she sat on keel alone. Not so much as a millimeter could be detected in flex at any of the numerous points I'd measured. I'd match her hull against any production boat. Any failures that might present it's self will be a welding issue and not in her design. I don't know why some here are so into all the paper issues. It's all been proven. Just build to your desire,wallet and time frame then enjoy. If second guessing a proven design is giving you ulcers and keeping you awake at night it's time to move on to something else in life. Martin.. > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 25371|25365|2011-02-16 07:59:51|Greg and Christine|Re: Hull stiffness|Why does the issue of certifying the hull design of a yacht to ABS rules even come up? ABS does a credible job for ships where the hull can be treated as a series of flat panels, but the hulls of smaller craft cannot be broken down into similar generic units. The application of ABS rules for smaller craft includes at least one notable failure. "Imagine", a 60' sailboat designed for the BOC around the world race in 1994, was built of aluminum to ABS rules. The boat experienced structural failures in the hull during a shakedown cruise. The following is quoted from an article about "Imagine". 'In a squall at sea, at night, off Cape May, New Jersey, "Imagine's" boom failed, the main sail was dropped, and in the resultant short steep seas, "Imagine" slammed badly, dishing plating at both ends of the vessel, causing two forward frames to trip, and resulting in other structural damage to forward deck longitudinals and in the cockpit. "Imagine's" hull remained watertight, and she returned to Norfolk under short sail.' --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > The main point of the quotes from standards was: IF someone wants to certify origami boat (let say trough ABS), it would be much easier to fight bureaucrat by its own weapon - paper. See how they will feel more relaxed (right away) when you show them quotes from the same document they use ;)) > > People usually ask: "Why origami boat does not have bulkheads?" Now you can say: > > 1. It does not need it structurally (proven by service records) > AND > 2. Standard does not require it ;) > > Standard may not estimate stiffness of the form as we want for origami boat, but it DOES recognize effect of the hull shape on the strength of the hull. > > Origami hull is EXCEPTION from boat building practice - that why standard will not take it into an account and will recognize only "service records" for origami designs (as long as there is no engineering calculation presented). Common sense will not be taken into an account by bureaucrat if it is not approved by paper he/she use. Not because they are "bad", they just might have limited knowledge in some areas and they rely on "paper" in this case. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "martin" wrote: > > > > I don't know why some here are so into all the paper issues. It's all been proven. > > Martin.. > > > | 25372|25365|2011-02-16 10:18:14|Matt Malone|Re: Hull stiffness|I agree, a rule book is no certain guarantee of anything. I only ever mentioned trying to get an orgami accepted by the standards as a potential answer to allow Brent to better deal with his critics. As I have said before "complete" analysis would be computationally expensive and technically challenging to program, and anything less, that smears, averages, approximates or models more simply, by necessity has its weaknesses and the possibility of unanticipated failure is there. I wish the proper computational tools, and the computer horsepower to run them were more accessible to the layman, but really, they are not, yet. Of course doing no real structural / dynamic analysis at all, and not following any rulebook at all, certainly is not guaranteeing anything either. Follow Brent's designs that have shown good service under adverse conditions. Follow his building methods. Make sure you weld at least as well as the others before you. While not a guarantee, the record of service of previous boats of the same model should give some prediction about the reliability of your boat. The more recent posts on at least one Brent boat that beached twice, and did not make it off the second time, should suggest to all that navigation, a far less mathematically challenging problem, is far more important to master than shell theory or fluid mechanics. I have many textbooks on engineering and a few textbooks on seamanship. I am studying the ones on seamanship because they seem to speak to avoiding the problems that might test the engineering of a boat. Yes, if I were to weld a steel boat, I would be inclined to put more steel in. I still really like bulkheads, as unnecessary as many might say they are. I also like the idea of a really low-profile, compact, pilot house because I like a third alternative to either being on deck in bad weather or being completely below. I also imagined the pilot house would serve as a nice "airlock", shed or mud room, to help keep things more civilized below. I also like the idea of some really good ground tackle, maybe something that comes apart and stores well. Then there are so many things that can be done for electrical power -- both in doing one's best not to need it, and to use what you need effectively to maximum benefit, for instance in refrigeration. The list could go on and on. There are just so many things that one could think more about that would have more immediate application to getting out there, staying out there, and enjoying being out there. I like the report Martin made on his measurements of the Prairie Maid. I would be tempted to more carefully measure my own boat in a similar way to practically quantify its stiffness. Matt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: greg_christine@... Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 12:59:48 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Hull stiffness Why does the issue of certifying the hull design of a yacht to ABS rules even come up? ABS does a credible job for ships where the hull can be treated as a series of flat panels, but the hulls of smaller craft cannot be broken down into similar generic units. The application of ABS rules for smaller craft includes at least one notable failure. "Imagine", a 60' sailboat designed for the BOC around the world race in 1994, was built of aluminum to ABS rules. The boat experienced structural failures in the hull during a shakedown cruise. The following is quoted from an article about "Imagine". 'In a squall at sea, at night, off Cape May, New Jersey, "Imagine's" boom failed, the main sail was dropped, and in the resultant short steep seas, "Imagine" slammed badly, dishing plating at both ends of the vessel, causing two forward frames to trip, and resulting in other structural damage to forward deck longitudinals and in the cockpit. "Imagine's" hull remained watertight, and she returned to Norfolk under short sail.' --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > The main point of the quotes from standards was: IF someone wants to certify origami boat (let say trough ABS), it would be much easier to fight bureaucrat by its own weapon - paper. See how they will feel more relaxed (right away) when you show them quotes from the same document they use ;)) > > People usually ask: "Why origami boat does not have bulkheads?" Now you can say: > > 1. It does not need it structurally (proven by service records) > AND > 2. Standard does not require it ;) > > Standard may not estimate stiffness of the form as we want for origami boat, but it DOES recognize effect of the hull shape on the strength of the hull. > > Origami hull is EXCEPTION from boat building practice - that why standard will not take it into an account and will recognize only "service records" for origami designs (as long as there is no engineering calculation presented). Common sense will not be taken into an account by bureaucrat if it is not approved by paper he/she use. Not because they are "bad", they just might have limited knowledge in some areas and they rely on "paper" in this case. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "martin" wrote: > > > > I don't know why some here are so into all the paper issues. It's all been proven. > > Martin.. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25373|25365|2011-02-16 12:19:24|wild_explorer|Re: Hull stiffness|I do not know why mentioning boatbuilding standards/rules acts like a big red flag on a bull. I was surprised how many useful information could be extracted from reading different boatbuilding standards. In many cases it backs up what Brent said. I agree, major part of all boatbuilding standards does focus on big ships. Only certain boatbuilding standards even have rules for small boats and they are different than for big ships. It just need to extract information from standards which could be applicable to small origami boat. Nothing else. If you follow blindly (standards, rules, advices, etc) without understanding why - it may or may not work for you. And ABS is NOT even has best written rules for small boats I saw so far. You need to combine several different standards/rules/researches/Brent's advices to make a set of possible RECOMMENDATIONS applicable to NEW origami design. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Greg and Christine" wrote: > > Why does the issue of certifying the hull design of a yacht to ABS rules even come up? > > ABS does a credible job for ships where the hull can be treated as a series of flat panels, but the hulls of smaller craft cannot be broken down into similar generic units. The application of ABS rules for smaller craft includes at least one notable failure. "Imagine", a 60' sailboat > | 25374|25374|2011-02-16 12:43:40|akenai|Adding an aft cabin|Brent and anyone else. I am interested in raising my aft deck and removing the cockpit footwell so I could have an aft cabin. How would you go about doing that? I was looking at the plans for the center cockpit for deck hights, but I would prefere to keep my pilot house as is. Kind of like Alex's boat Shair. How much will that effect the CG? Aaron| 25375|25365|2011-02-16 13:19:33|Ben Okopnik|Re: Hull stiffness|On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 05:19:22PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > I do not know why mentioning boatbuilding standards/rules acts like a > big red flag on a bull. Might be because it's one of those things that amateur boat-builders are sensitive about. Ya think? The average Joe is afraid of things that are different. He's also terrified by things he doesn't understand (like boats, and water.) By building a boat, you're weird as hell in the first place (i.e., you're doing something that so-called "normal" people don't do - OH-OH, IT'S DIFFERENT!) - and then, because you're already doing this different thing, "everybody knows" that you should stick to the "tried and true" and follow the rules and the standards. When you don't even do _that,_ the whole world and their great aunt Sally is going to come by and tell you that you're nuts, past the bend, three bricks short of a full hod, and should probably be taken to the loony bin so that you don't disturb those "normal" sheeple. A while of putting up with that, and you just might be sensitive too. I'm not saying that it's right, but I am saying that it's understandable. 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| 25376|25365|2011-02-16 14:10:23|wild_explorer|Re: Hull stiffness|Na-a-a-h.. I am not buying it ;) The same as when talking about "origami" design raises red flag in boatbuilding forums. Same type of "Ah and Oh"... "It is not what we see in the standards/rules!!! We do not want to hear about it!" I am reading materials what are available for FREE online (about boatbulding, welding, standards, etc). I took deeper look at different standards for small metal(steel, not interested in aluminum) boats only during last 3 weeks. It is not as fun reading as about "someone sailing around the world", but necessary if I want to build origami boat. Personally, I think it requires more knowledge (you need to pay attention to details and Brent's recommendations) than to build steel boat by regular boatbuilding method (with frames). It sounds so easy when you taking Brent's advices. But Brent probably gave it a lot of thoughts and "real-world" testing over the years. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 05:19:22PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > > > I do not know why mentioning boatbuilding standards/rules acts like a > > big red flag on a bull. > > Might be because it's one of those things that amateur boat-builders are > sensitive about. Ya think? > | 25377|25365|2011-02-16 14:21:43|Ben Okopnik|Re: Hull stiffness|On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 07:10:21PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > Na-a-a-h.. I am not buying it ;) I didn't say it was _reasonable._ I'm just saying that this is the way it is. :) 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| 25378|25374|2011-02-16 15:22:53|wild_explorer|Re: Adding an aft cabin|You can try to use spreadsheet in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/Origami_hulls_and_stability/Calculations/ Enter total hull weight (displacement of the boat) with all zeros (X,Y,Z) You know how heavy the plates are and the distance you want to move it. Enter it there as well. It should give you an approximation of the difference in CG for your changes. For more detailed estimate you need to remove plates from one location and add plates to new location (need to know exact initial center of gravity). Simple estimate should work fine. P.S. Nice image. Do you have more? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "akenai" wrote: > > Brent and anyone else. > > I am interested in raising my aft deck and removing the cockpit footwell > so I could have an aft cabin. How would you go about doing that? I was looking at the plans for the center cockpit for deck hights, but I would prefere to keep my pilot house as is. Kind of like Alex's boat Shair. How much will that effect the CG? > Aaron > | 25379|25374|2011-02-16 15:55:56|Aaron Williams|Re: Adding an aft cabin| The existing deck must be about 360 lbs and I want to raise it 12"  I used 19500 as starting weight at zero next line was 360 and Z was 12 it moved the COG .21 not sure if I did it right. The image was from Nauticat.com I also have one showing the 37 with a sugar scoop aft end. Now this is all going to get a bit yachtie as some would say. ________________________________ From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, February 16, 2011 11:22:41 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Adding an aft cabin   You can try to use spreadsheet in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/Origami_hulls_and_stability/Calculations/ Enter total hull weight (displacement of the boat) with all zeros (X,Y,Z) You know how heavy the plates are and the distance you want to move it. Enter it there as well. It should give you an approximation of the difference in CG for your changes. For more detailed estimate you need to remove plates from one location and add plates to new location (need to know exact initial center of gravity). Simple estimate should work fine. P.S. Nice image. Do you have more? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "akenai" wrote: > > Brent and anyone else. > > I am interested in raising my aft deck and removing the cockpit footwell > so I could have an aft cabin. How would you go about doing that? I was looking >at the plans for the center cockpit for deck hights, but I would prefere to keep >my pilot house as is. Kind of like Alex's boat Shair. How much will that effect >the CG? > Aaron > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25380|25374|2011-02-16 16:17:23|wild_explorer|Re: Adding an aft cabin|It looks about right. For boat 19,500 Lbs, moving weight 360 Lbs, 12 inch up, will raise VCG 0.21 inch from initial VCG. I would appreciate if someone can check these numbers (and accuracy of spreadsheet calculation) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > >  The existing deck must be about 360 lbs and I want to raise it 12"  I used > 19500 as starting weight at zero next line was 360 and Z was 12 it moved the COG > .21 not sure if I did it right. > > The image was from Nauticat.com > I also have one showing the 37 with a sugar scoop aft end. Now this is all going > to get a bit yachtie as some would say. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: wild_explorer > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wed, February 16, 2011 11:22:41 AM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Adding an aft cabin > >   > You can try to use spreadsheet in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/Origami_hulls_and_stability/Calculations/ > > > Enter total hull weight (displacement of the boat) with all zeros (X,Y,Z) > > You know how heavy the plates are and the distance you want to move it. Enter it > there as well. It should give you an approximation of the difference in CG for > your changes. > > For more detailed estimate you need to remove plates from one location and add > plates to new location (need to know exact initial center of gravity). Simple > estimate should work fine. > > P.S. Nice image. Do you have more? > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "akenai" wrote: > > > > Brent and anyone else. > > > > I am interested in raising my aft deck and removing the cockpit footwell > > so I could have an aft cabin. How would you go about doing that? I was looking > >at the plans for the center cockpit for deck hights, but I would prefere to keep > >my pilot house as is. Kind of like Alex's boat Shair. How much will that effect > >the CG? > > Aaron > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25381|25362|2011-02-16 17:51:20|kingsknight4life|Re: trailer?|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Brent.....Looking to haul Haiku to our property, I remember you saying there might be a trailer for cheap down island..shoot me an e-mail;or give me a shout thanks tom > > > I hauled mine from Comox to Edmonton on a 35 ft gooseneck trailer. It had two 10,000 lb axles though. Rowland| 25382|25362|2011-02-16 20:21:21|martin demers|Re: trailer?|I had my boat hauled on a low bed drop deck trailer from Erie lake to Montreal area for a real good price. I placed an add asking for a trailer coming back empty, and a company called me, they said they where going there every week. It is another approach. martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: wildcatbjj@... Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 22:51:12 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: trailer? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Brent.....Looking to haul Haiku to our property, I remember you saying there might be a trailer for cheap down island..shoot me an e-mail;or give me a shout thanks tom > > > I hauled mine from Comox to Edmonton on a 35 ft gooseneck trailer. It had two 10,000 lb axles though. Rowland [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25383|25365|2011-02-17 07:42:13|Greg and Christine|Re: Hull stiffness|There are alternatives to the rulebook approach that ABS has traditionally used for the design of ship hulls. Several general purpose finite element codes exist can be used to evaluate the integrity of an arbitrary structural configuration under an arbitrary loading and subject to failure due to both material yielding and buckling. In a previous career, I worked in the hull engineering department of a large shipyard. Most of our work was for the Navy, so we were not bound by the ABS rulebook. We did extensive analyses of ship hulls using NASTRAN, ABAQUS, and LS-DYNA. In recent years, ABS has attempted to migrate toward a finite element approach with their SAFEHULL software. There is also the MAESTRO code, which attempts to marry a coarse mesh finite element model with rulebook equations for the buckling strength of panels and stiffeners. The point of this post is that there are ways to evaluate the strength of a structure that take into account the effects of curvature and do not rely on rulebook equations.| 25384|25365|2011-02-17 08:06:23|Greg and Christine|Re: Hull stiffness|Having thought about this issue for few additional minutes, the critical design loads for small craft are dynamic impacts, such as a boat slamming down after going over a wave, or a grounded boat falling on its side. These types of loads are very different from the traditional rulebook loads used to design ships, such as the quasi-static loading of a long hull balanced on two wave crests with the wave trough amidships. Dynamic impacts are not well suited to the rulebook methodology for hull design. This was the fundamental problem behind the hull failure mentioned in my previous post concerning the 60' sailboat "Imagine", which occurred due to slamming of the hull during a squall. The latest generation of finite element codes have the capability to evaluate dynamic impacts, both against fluids and solids. These include LS-DYNA, ABAQUS/EXPLICIT, and RADIOSS. These codes are being used in the auto industry to model car crashes. In my present career, I am using LS-DYNA to model similar problems. Perhaps these tools will become more commonly used in boat design, and will provide a more rational means for evaluating hull strength.| 25385|25365|2011-02-17 12:28:33|wild_explorer|Re: Hull stiffness|Very interesting information. I see only couple of problems... 1. I suspect all these FEA software are out of reach of most hobbyists and even small-to-medium companies (software have prohibitive cost). Or could be it legally downloaded for free? 2. Learning curve to use (properly) such software (even if it is available for free). As it was mentioned before, slamming force on the hull of a boat up to 40 ft could be up to 80 psi. Will be you able to test some 3D-test-shapes with different Gaussian Curvature numbers with your LS-DYNA software to see what shape perform better? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Greg and Christine" wrote: > > Dynamic impacts are not well suited to the rulebook methodology for hull design. This was the fundamental problem behind the hull failure mentioned in my previous post concerning the 60' sailboat "Imagine", which occurred due to slamming of the hull during a squall. > > The latest generation of finite element codes have the capability to evaluate dynamic impacts, both against fluids and solids. These include LS-DYNA, ABAQUS/EXPLICIT, and RADIOSS. These codes are being used in the auto industry to model car crashes. In my present career, I am using LS-DYNA to model similar problems. Perhaps these tools will become more commonly used in boat design, and will provide a more rational means for evaluating hull strength. > | 25386|25279|2011-02-17 22:30:38|aaron riis|Re: flex couplling|Brent do you use a flex coupling between the engine and shaft.  If  I buy brand new flexible mounts and keep the old ones as spare, will a dry exhaust work? Aaron --- On Mon, 2/14/11, brentswain38 wrote: From: brentswain38 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: flex couplling To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Monday, February 14, 2011, 1:25 PM   Solid mounting definitely means more noise and vibration, with far more reliability, and less breakdown of anything connected to the engine, as it moves far less. Mine is mounted on cutting board plastic, with PVC bushings and washers,to eliminate the metal to metal contact with the mounting bolts. If I take the engine out, then remount it, I get a few hours of running, before it's time to retighten the bolts, then it can run forever without the need for any further tightening. I wired my mounting bolts the way helicopter bolts are wired, to eliminate any chance of them coming loose. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, aaron riis wrote: > > > I want to have my engine as far aft as I can, thinking about a short floating stuffing box without a flex coupling, the shaft will be less than 4 feet total.  some people say that that increases vibration, but Brent's book talks about solidly mounting the engine.  what do you think?  Aaron > --- On Thu, 2/10/11, brentswain38 wrote: > > > From: brentswain38 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 5:53 PM > > >   > > > > At the first opportunity. I like to tack a bit of steel on , connecting one corner of the zinc to the hull, guaranteeing electrical connection. Too much weld makes the straps hard to remove. The ss bolts give the strength you need, the tack is only to guarantee electrical connection. > Wooden boat builders wouldn't go to sea without wood working tools on board. Would it make sense for steel boat cruisers to not have an alternator welder aboard, when they cost under $50? > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I usually put one Z3 centred on the bottom of the rudder and one each side of the keel- skeg plate. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > > > Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. All the best, 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] | 25387|25244|2011-02-18 04:34:39|boatwayupnorth|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|Brent, thank you for clearing this up. In your experience, is 4 mm (or the equivalent in inches) much harder to work with than 5? And does it make a difference in ballasting? Kim, Richard and Martin: thanks a lot for joining in! Brents and your experiences are much appreciated. Thanks for sharing! Cheers Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > The stem bar goes to half a meter below the waterline, where the V is deepest, and impact is most likely. Any impact below that is a glancing blow . It can be bent from flat bar, or cut from keel bottom scraps. Being in the deep V it is in , it is completely under compression, and can't go anywhere. I bent mine up from a flat bar, with a hydraulic jack, under a huge bolder. > The size of the skeg gusset is not important, as it is a huge overkill, spreading impacts with the skeg over a much larger section of hull centreline. I make it 6 inches deep on the single keeler, radiused into gussets on both ends, on the single keeler, and the aft end on the twin keeler, as the photos show. > I wouldn't rule out 4mm on the 36, just be extremely careful to avoid welding distortion, on the lighter plate. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "boatwayupnorth" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent, regarding the flat bar reinforcement at the inside of the stem: In the plans the only place where I found this indicated is in drawing 3. It seems that the flatbar is to be welded in from the underside of the anchor well downwards. It doesnt say how far down this flatbar is supposed to continue. It also seems that the flatbar has to be bend or cut to fit. Is this correct? If this is not too clear I would be happy to post a picture from this part of the drawing if that is ok with you. > > > > I was also wondering about what looks like a big gusset between skeg and keel (for the fin keeler). In the photo section this is visible in the Ocean Pearl and the Austin Hull album. It is indicated in drawings 1 and 6 of the plans you have send me, but there is no detailed drawing with any measurements. Could you provide this? > > > > And while I am at it: Here in Europe, steel plate is available as either 4 or 5 mm. 3/16 is equivalent to 4,76 mm. I know you said before that you would recommend 4mm for your 31. Would you rule out going down to 4 mm for the 36? > > Thanks > > Walter > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > Jim > > > I just checked your latest post on Gauss curve. Looks good. > > > Where it suggested my hulls need reinforcement ,there is a lot of reinforcement. > > ... > > > The stem has a 2 inch by half inch flat bar on edge, welded inside. > > > > > > | 25389|25389|2011-02-18 09:27:56|boatwayupnorth|Metric measurements|Kim, since you too are in the "metric world" I thought I'd ask: Did you translate the imperial measurements in the plans to metric or did you just use feet, inches and fractions? I have translated everything, but of course it ends up with some awkward numbers. I don't know if it really makes much of a difference in real life to just round up or down. It's ok for me to deal with fractions of inches when I'm at my desk, but I really wouldn't feel comfortable doing it in the usual chaos of my shop or out in the field. Has anybody else from the "metric world" found a way for how to do this? Cheers Walter| 25390|25365|2011-02-18 09:44:56|Norm Moore|Re: Hull stiffness|Take a look at this link. Figure 8-9 plots pressure loads on flat plate from slamming for deadrise angles 20-80 degrees. http://exchange.dnv.com:6389/dynaweb/offshore/rp-c205/@Generic__BookTextView/20104;hf=0;cs=default;ts=default Norm Moore 559-645-5314 ________________________________ From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, February 17, 2011 9:28:31 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Hull stiffness Very interesting information. I see only couple of problems... 1. I suspect all these FEA software are out of reach of most hobbyists and even small-to-medium companies (software have prohibitive cost). Or could be it legally downloaded for free? 2. Learning curve to use (properly) such software (even if it is available for free). As it was mentioned before, slamming force on the hull of a boat up to 40 ft could be up to 80 psi. Will be you able to test some 3D-test-shapes with different Gaussian Curvature numbers with your LS-DYNA software to see what shape perform better? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Greg and Christine" wrote: > > Dynamic impacts are not well suited to the rulebook methodology for hull >design. This was the fundamental problem behind the hull failure mentioned in >my previous post concerning the 60' sailboat "Imagine", which occurred due to >slamming of the hull during a squall. > > The latest generation of finite element codes have the capability to evaluate >dynamic impacts, both against fluids and solids. These include LS-DYNA, >ABAQUS/EXPLICIT, and RADIOSS. These codes are being used in the auto industry >to model car crashes. In my present career, I am using LS-DYNA to model similar >problems. Perhaps these tools will become more commonly used in boat design, >and will provide a more rational means for evaluating hull strength. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25391|25391|2011-02-18 11:54:21|Andrew|Pre painted and galvanized steel|Anyone have any experience with this stuff? You'd still have to paint the welds... http://www.uss.com/corp/sheet/coated/prepainted-coated.asp Thx.Andy| 25392|25391|2011-02-18 11:55:33|Andrew|Pre painted and galvanized steel|Anyone have any experience with this stuff? You'd still have to paint the welds... http://www.uss.com/corp/sheet/coated/prepainted-coated.asp Thx.Andy| 25393|25393|2011-02-18 15:14:23|Paul Wilson|Single-handed Tips|A free book on singlehanded sailing.....if you don't agree with something in the book, remember it is free :). Cheers, Paul From Sailing Anarchy... Canadian West Coast singlehander Andrew Evans (Foolish in our forums) has written “Thoughts, Tips, Techniques & Tactics for Singlehanded Sailing,” with a forward by two time solo circumnavigator Bruce Schwab. Best of all, its FREE. Download the book as a PDF from the San Francisco Singlehanded Sailing Society . This 146 page book goes into amazing detail on individual sailing skills; like how to tack, gybe and launch a chute alone, and even gives solutions for all of the things that can go wrong in the process. With more than 700 singlehanded trips, including 200 races, over the past nine years, Andrew has taken his boat to the limit. He has also discovered pretty well everything that can go wrong in the process and he’s not shy about telling the stories. Andrew says that his process is to keep pushing until something snaps, and then pull back and learn from the mistakes. This is the only techniques book that has a full ten pages on the psychological aspects of sailing alone, and another three on the spiritual side. He has done an academic study on the subject, with lots of quotes from real PhD’s. It’s a great read and worth every penny of the price. 02/1711 http://www.sfbaysss.org/tipsbook/ Cheers, Paul| 25394|25393|2011-02-18 16:42:38|Aaron Williams|Re: Single-handed Tips|Thanks for thinking about all of us that may be going it alone. Aaron ________________________________ From: Paul Wilson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, February 18, 2011 11:14:48 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Single-handed Tips A free book on singlehanded sailing.....if you don't agree with something in the book, remember it is free :). Cheers, Paul From Sailing Anarchy... Canadian West Coast singlehander Andrew Evans (Foolish in our forums) has written “Thoughts, Tips, Techniques & Tactics for Singlehanded Sailing,” with a forward by two time solo circumnavigator Bruce Schwab. Best of all, its FREE. Download the book as a PDF from the San Francisco Singlehanded Sailing Society . This 146 page book goes into amazing detail on individual sailing skills; like how to tack, gybe and launch a chute alone, and even gives solutions for all of the things that can go wrong in the process. With more than 700 singlehanded trips, including 200 races, over the past nine years, Andrew has taken his boat to the limit. He has also discovered pretty well everything that can go wrong in the process and he’s not shy about telling the stories. Andrew says that his process is to keep pushing until something snaps, and then pull back and learn from the mistakes. This is the only techniques book that has a full ten pages on the psychological aspects of sailing alone, and another three on the spiritual side. He has done an academic study on the subject, with lots of quotes from real PhD’s. It’s a great read and worth every penny of the price. 02/1711 http://www.sfbaysss.org/tipsbook/ Cheers, Paul ------------------------------------ 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]| 25395|25389|2011-02-18 17:19:56|Ralph|Re: Metric measurements|I am from the continent in Europe but 'for Brent' I use the imperial system. I got used to it and now it is no problem (for me). At the scrap yard I buy in metric system 3mm, 5mm, 6 mm are 1/8", 3/16" and 1/4". The tubes in Europe are also in inches and the sch40 is often printed on the tube. Rigging 5/16" = 8mm. I have a measure tape with inches (and centimeters). 12" is 30 cm. It is easy. I did not yet buy my steel plates but when they are there, I will use the imperial system for the 'out lining'. No problem. Good luck --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "boatwayupnorth" wrote: > > Kim, since you too are in the "metric world" I thought I'd ask: Did you translate the imperial measurements in the plans to metric or did you just use feet, inches and fractions? I have translated everything, but of course it ends up with some awkward numbers. I don't know if it really makes much of a difference in real life to just round up or down. It's ok for me to deal with fractions of inches when I'm at my desk, but I really wouldn't feel comfortable doing it in the usual chaos of my shop or out in the field. Has anybody else from the "metric world" found a way for how to do this? > Cheers > Walter > | 25396|25389|2011-02-18 17:31:33|Kim|Re: Metric measurements|Hi Walter ... I was in my 20's when they started to convert Australia to metric. Before that we used imperial measurements. So I'm used to both. I remember well that, to encourage/force the uptake of the metric system, they actually banned the sale of imperial tapes back then! Old tape measures became EXTREMELY valuable! :-) Of course public pressure eventually overturned that ruling, and now tapes with both metric and imperial marked on them are common, and that's what I use. So I haven't bothered to translate the imperial measurements in the plans to metric. When marking out the hull shape, and the origami cutout, I used the imperial measurements marked on Brent's plans. I was extremely careful to mark the steel EXACTLY as drawn, and consequently the two hull halves pulled together easily and perfectly. I was also extremely careful to get the hull beam measurements correct (after aligning and pulling any twist out of the hull). After that, measurements don't seem to matter all that much: I've basically cut the rest of the steel to fit the hull shape that I've got. If I hadn't grown up with the imperial system, then I most definitely would have converted all the measurements on the plans to metric, and not rounded them off, despite the subsequent awkward numbers. I wouldn't have even attempted to use imperial. The quirks of the imperial system are such that one absorbs it by osmosis over a long period of time! :-) If you used the imperial system in school, then you just know what (say) 5/32" is (and can instantly visualize it in your mind). Otherwise I think it would be a struggle! Hope this helps! Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "boatwayupnorth" wrote: > > Kim, since you too are in the "metric world" I thought I'd ask: Did you translate the imperial measurements in the plans to metric or did you just use feet, inches and fractions? I have translated everything, but of course it ends up with some awkward numbers. I don't know if it really makes much of a difference in real life to just round up or down. It's ok for me to deal with fractions of inches when I'm at my desk, but I really wouldn't feel comfortable doing it in the usual chaos of my shop or out in the field. Has anybody else from the "metric world" found a way for how to do this? > Cheers > Walter ______________________________________________________________ | 25397|25393|2011-02-18 17:34:05|Kim|Re: Single-handed Tips|Excellent link, Paul! Thanks! Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wilson wrote: > > A free book on singlehanded sailing.....if you don't agree with > something in the book, remember it is free :). > > Cheers, Paul > > From Sailing Anarchy... > > Canadian West Coast singlehander Andrew Evans (Foolish in our forums) > has written "Thoughts, Tips, Techniques & Tactics for Singlehanded > Sailing," with a forward by two time solo circumnavigator Bruce Schwab. > Best of all, its FREE. Download the book as a PDF from the San Francisco > Singlehanded Sailing Society . > This 146 page book goes into amazing detail on individual sailing > skills; like how to tack, gybe and launch a chute alone, and even gives > solutions for all of the things that can go wrong in the process. With > more than 700 singlehanded trips, including 200 races, over the past > nine years, Andrew has taken his boat to the limit. He has also > discovered pretty well everything that can go wrong in the process and > he's not shy about telling the stories. Andrew says that his process is > to keep pushing until something snaps, and then pull back and learn from > the mistakes. > This is the only techniques book that has a full ten pages on the > psychological aspects of sailing alone, and another three on the > spiritual side. He has done an academic study on the subject, with lots > of quotes from real PhD's. It's a great read and worth every penny of > the price. > > 02/1711 > > > http://www.sfbaysss.org/tipsbook/ > > Cheers, Paul ______________________________________________________________ | 25398|25389|2011-02-19 10:25:44|boatwayupnorth|Re: Metric measurements|Ralph: "I am from the continent in Europe but 'for Brent' I use the imperial system. I got used to it and now it is no problem (for me). At the scrap yard I buy in metric system 3mm, 5mm, 6 mm are 1/8", 3/16" and 1/4". The tubes in Europe are also in inches and the sch40 is often printed on the tube. Rigging 5/16" = 8mm. I have a measure tape with inches (and centimeters). 12" is 30 cm. It is easy." Usually I use the same rules of thump when looking for the closest equivalent in imperial, but I don't feel comfortable with detailed measurements. 6 ft is not 180 cm, but 182,4. That adds up in the long run. Anyway, I'll probably do pretty much the same as you. Cheers Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > I am from the continent in Europe but 'for Brent' I use the imperial system. I got used to it and now it is no problem (for me). At the scrap yard I buy in metric system 3mm, 5mm, 6 mm are 1/8", 3/16" and 1/4". The tubes in Europe are also in inches and the sch40 is often printed on the tube. Rigging 5/16" = 8mm. > I have a measure tape with inches (and centimeters). 12" is 30 cm. It is easy. > I did not yet buy my steel plates but when they are there, I will use the imperial system for the 'out lining'. No problem. > Good luck > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "boatwayupnorth" wrote: > > > > Kim, since you too are in the "metric world" I thought I'd ask: Did you translate the imperial measurements in the plans to metric or did you just use feet, inches and fractions? I have translated everything, but of course it ends up with some awkward numbers. I don't know if it really makes much of a difference in real life to just round up or down. It's ok for me to deal with fractions of inches when I'm at my desk, but I really wouldn't feel comfortable doing it in the usual chaos of my shop or out in the field. Has anybody else from the "metric world" found a way for how to do this? > > Cheers > > Walter > > > | 25399|25389|2011-02-19 10:45:04|boatwayupnorth|Re: Metric measurements|Kim, Ralph: Thanks for your input! And sorry for posting twice. I first wrote my message in the "Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization"-thread, but thought it would be better to start a new one. I thought I deleted the first message, but Yahoo thought otherwise. "If I hadn't grown up with the imperial system, then I most definitely would have converted all the measurements on the plans to metric, and not rounded them off, despite the subsequent awkward numbers. I wouldn't have even attempted to use imperial. The quirks of the imperial system are such that one absorbs it by osmosis over a long period of time! :-) If you used the imperial system in school, then you just know what (say) 5/32" is (and can instantly visualize it in your mind). Otherwise I think it would be a struggle!" That's my concern. Feet and inches are not the problem, but fractions? Bad for us lacking the osmosis Â… Besides that I feel more comfortable with metric to begin with, the reason for translating it to metric is that I want to build a model 1: 10. In metric it's dividing everything by ten and be done with it. In imperial it's plain impossible for me to visualize. Yours is probably the best advice: use the precise metric measurement and make sure twice that I get it exactly right. For everything else I already do what Ralph said and use the closest material size in metric. Cheers Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Walter ... > > I was in my 20's when they started to convert Australia to metric. Before that we used imperial measurements. So I'm used to both. I remember well that, to encourage/force the uptake of the metric system, they actually banned the sale of imperial tapes back then! Old tape measures became EXTREMELY valuable! :-) Of course public pressure eventually overturned that ruling, and now tapes with both metric and imperial marked on them are common, and that's what I use. > > So I haven't bothered to translate the imperial measurements in the plans to metric. When marking out the hull shape, and the origami cutout, I used the imperial measurements marked on Brent's plans. I was extremely careful to mark the steel EXACTLY as drawn, and consequently the two hull halves pulled together easily and perfectly. I was also extremely careful to get the hull beam measurements correct (after aligning and pulling any twist out of the hull). After that, measurements don't seem to matter all that much: I've basically cut the rest of the steel to fit the hull shape that I've got. > > If I hadn't grown up with the imperial system, then I most definitely would have converted all the measurements on the plans to metric, and not rounded them off, despite the subsequent awkward numbers. I wouldn't have even attempted to use imperial. The quirks of the imperial system are such that one absorbs it by osmosis over a long period of time! :-) If you used the imperial system in school, then you just know what (say) 5/32" is (and can instantly visualize it in your mind). Otherwise I think it would be a struggle! > > Hope this helps! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "boatwayupnorth" w.schonfelder@ wrote: > > > > Kim, since you too are in the "metric world" I thought I'd ask: Did you translate the imperial measurements in the plans to metric or did you just use feet, inches and fractions? I have translated everything, but of course it ends up with some awkward numbers. I don't know if it really makes much of a difference in real life to just round up or down. It's ok for me to deal with fractions of inches when I'm at my desk, but I really wouldn't feel comfortable doing it in the usual chaos of my shop or out in the field. Has anybody else from the "metric world" found a way for how to do this? > > Cheers > > Walter > ______________________________________________________________ > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25400|25362|2011-02-19 13:48:31|Mark Hamill|Re: trailer?|Hi Vancouver Island owners--Is anyone interested in Brents idea of a coop for that trailer?? It probably needs brakes, lights fenders etc to comply with regulations etc and in fact I will take pictures of it and ask what might need to be done to make it legal. If one can get a transfer of the registration it would probably help a great deal--My past experiences with the road safety guys and RCMP regarding trailers has not been very positive so don't want to do anything to get them mad--not joking. If the trailer is not up to code the ICBC can just walk away from any accident reimburesment. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:52 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: trailer? Tom The trailer is still there, in Royston, at least it was a week or two ago. Mark Hammil, who bought Terry's old boat, is interested in it. Tires are still good ,but the brakes need work. It is a bit awkward to use for a twin keeler, but could be done. Ask Mark Hammil if he wants to do a partnership, or rent it to you. If all brentboat ownerts in the area owned it, as a co-op, their haulouts would be very cheap, and easy to do. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "rupertnimrod" wrote: > > Brent.....Looking to haul Haiku to our property, I remember you saying there might be a trailer for cheap down island..shoot me an e-mail;or give me a shout thanks tom > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25401|25015|2011-02-19 16:11:38|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|The link was pointed out to me during discussion about strength of "origami" shape. Not directly related to boat building, but related to Brent's technique and looks like very interesting group about folding shapes. http://www.curvedfolding.com/ Very nice example what could be done by folding shapes http://www.curvedfolding.com/photo/rca-show-2010-38?context=latest Some video about folding shape in 3D http://www.curvedfolding.com/video/curved-folding-in-kangaroo| 25402|25015|2011-02-19 16:39:16|wild_explorer|Re: Estimating stiffness of Orgami|I was told that the name of this type of art is Kirigami Some examples: http://www.uncledean.net/kirigami.html| 25403|25403|2011-02-19 20:06:19|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|fuel in the bilge?|Someone told me that we are not allowed to keep our fuel directly in the bilge unless it was in a separate fuel tank. I was surprise to hear that since I have learn in this group how the bilge was welded and covered in the origami design to keep the fuel. Any comments? Is there some places where they have different rules about this concern? Can it be different from one province to another one or from one state to another one? Martin.| 25404|25403|2011-02-20 00:38:04|Paul Wilson|Re: fuel in the bilge?|All new build ships like oil tankers and passenger ships since 2007 must have double bottoms but I have never heard that this is a requirement for yachts. Single hulled oil tankers are supposed to be phased out by 2026 but the United Nations says it is 2010. Try to make sense out of that :). Cheers, Paul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bottom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_hull On 2/20/2011 2:06 PM, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > Someone told me that we are not allowed to keep our fuel directly in > the bilge unless it was in a separate fuel tank. I was surprise to > hear that since I have learn in this group how the bilge was welded > and covered in the origami design to keep the fuel. > > Any comments? > Is there some places where they have different rules about this concern? > Can it be different from one province to another one or from one state > to another one? > > | 25405|25403|2011-02-20 08:05:56|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: fuel in the bilge?|There are 3 different factors at work here, often confused. First, these types of tanks are called integral tanks, ie a welded airtight tank that ends directly on the bottom. They are fine for diesel fuel, but forbidden for gasoline. For those of us who have / use gasoline engines, these types of vessels cannot be insured after a survey, as a survey will note and forbid these types of installations. Any vessels using integral tanks for gasoline may have insurance, where the installation was not noted. This means that in case of accident, the insurance company wil not pay up. Even when you did not cause the accident (whatever the accident was) and you had nothing to do with it. For example, if someone hits you in daylight, with you ashore, and both vessels sink, your own liability insurance will almost certainly not pay out, IF they notice you had integral tanks with gasoline. Legally, they are in the right. This is not permitted by any of the classing societies, abyc, rina, abs, or european small craft directives. After 24 m in length, 12 people as passengers, or commercial vessels, different rules apply. This does not apply to the BS origami designs, as these are far too small to be in that category. Thus, whatever is required for commercial botas, tankers, tugboat, ferries is not material to us in here. So, there are different things at work here; 1. diesel vs. gas 2. inspected and insured (ie classed, or in the US documented, vessels) 3. commercial lareg crafts vs yachts A BS origami boat is in the small private-yachts group. Always unclassed or not "documented which is a US term", I think And varying insurance levels, or none The conclusion; Diesel in integral tanks is fine, legal, and can be inspected/insured/documented subject to other factors. Note that the 4-6M$ Dashews alu yachts, the FPB series, at 16-24 m long, use integral tanks in an alu hull, with no problems. For diesel. > Someone told me that we are not allowed to keep our fuel directly in > the bilge unless it was in a separate fuel tank. I was surprise to > hear that since I have learn in this group how the bilge was welded > and covered in the origami design to keep the fuel. > > Any comments? > Is there some places where they have different rules about this concern? > Can it be different from one province to another one or from one state > to another one? > > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25406|25406|2011-02-20 10:32:36|SHANE ROTHWELL|Trailer|Hey Guys,   Another thing to be careful of when dealing with the insurance  thieves of B.C. (what elese do you call a monopoly that is protected by armed mercinaries?) is that, just like the slowest ship determining the speed of a convoy, even if your vehicle is insurred for 55 million 3rd party, but the trailer is only insured for the minimum 200,000, then the whole she-bang (truck & trailer, the lot) is covered for the lesser amount.....   I think it was something like an extra $25/yr to bring the insurance up on our vehicle to $2kk, but it'd be a drag to hear that yet another was screwed over by them.   Re: trailer? Posted by: "Mark Hamill" mhamill1@...   sunbearone Sat Feb 19, 2011 10:48 am (PST) Hi Vancouver Island owners--Is anyone interested in Brents idea of a coop for that trailer?? It probably needs brakes, lights fenders etc to comply with regulations etc and in fact I will take pictures of it and ask what might need to be done to make it legal. If one can get a transfer of the registration it would probably help a great deal--My past experiences with the road safety guys and RCMP regarding trailers has not been very positive so don't want to do anything to get them mad--not joking. If the trailer is not up to code the ICBC can just walk away from any accident reimburesment. MarkH ----- Original Message ----- From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@ yahoogroups. com Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:52 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: trailer? Tom The trailer is still there, in Royston, at least it was a week or two ago. Mark Hammil, who bought Terry's old boat, is interested in it. Tires are still good ,but the brakes need work. It is a bit awkward to use for a twin keeler, but could be done. Ask Mark Hammil if he wants to do a partnership, or rent it to you. If all brentboat ownerts in the area owned it, as a co-op, their haulouts would be very cheap, and easy to do. --- In origamiboats@ yahoogroups. com, "rupertnimrod" wrote: > > Brent.....Looking to haul Haiku to our property, I remember you saying there >might be a trailer for cheap down island..shoot me an e-mail;or give me a shout >thanks tom > | 25407|25391|2011-02-20 12:35:25|Mark Hamill|Re: Pre painted and galvanized steel|The base coat is Galvalume and this site describes how to weld http://www.guttersupply.com/file_area/public/File/Galvalume%20Facts.pdf [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25408|25374|2011-02-20 21:29:25|brentswain38|Re: Adding an aft cabin|It wouldn't affect the LCG much, as it is mostly the same plate, in a slightly different configuration. It would raise the VCG a bit, making the boat more tender, and reducing initial stability. I wouldn't put opening ports at the front end of the raised portion, as they would act like water scoops in a knock down, if acidentally left open ( which, Murphy's law being what it is, would be inevitable at some point in her life). When beating off a lee shore at night, I prefer to be in a cockpit , being in the boat, rather than perched on top of one. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "akenai" wrote: > > Brent and anyone else. > > I am interested in raising my aft deck and removing the cockpit footwell > so I could have an aft cabin. How would you go about doing that? I was looking at the plans for the center cockpit for deck hights, but I would prefere to keep my pilot house as is. Kind of like Alex's boat Shair. How much will that effect the CG? > Aaron > | 25409|25374|2011-02-20 21:48:00|Aaron Williams|Re: Adding an aft cabin|I am thinking about switching to an aluminum house and deck that would nock off several hundred lbs ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 5:29:14 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Adding an aft cabin   It wouldn't affect the LCG much, as it is mostly the same plate, in a slightly different configuration. It would raise the VCG a bit, making the boat more tender, and reducing initial stability. I wouldn't put opening ports at the front end of the raised portion, as they would act like water scoops in a knock down, if acidentally left open ( which, Murphy's law being what it is, would be inevitable at some point in her life). When beating off a lee shore at night, I prefer to be in a cockpit , being in the boat, rather than perched on top of one. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "akenai" wrote: > > Brent and anyone else. > > I am interested in raising my aft deck and removing the cockpit footwell > so I could have an aft cabin. How would you go about doing that? I was looking >at the plans for the center cockpit for deck hights, but I would prefere to keep >my pilot house as is. Kind of like Alex's boat Shair. How much will that effect >the CG? > Aaron > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25410|25365|2011-02-20 21:50:37|brentswain38|Re: Hull stiffness|These boats are decades past the tried and true stage. Some, who have a huge financial interest in keeping new boats expensive, do anything they can to discourage simpler and more affordable ways from catching on. Some, who have spent a lifetime doing things a certain way, are horrified when new technology threatens to make what they have learned over many years, irrelevant, and outdated. ( Gutenburg we hate your type! Whatsamatter Gut, flunked penmanship? Ben Franklin, Go fly a... er.. uh... go jump in a lake.!) While returning cruisers are constantly telling us to keep it simple, many, when offered several options, wil pick the most complex and money and time consuming one every time , under the misconception that making it more expensive and complex means you are automaticaly doing a better job. The old used car salesmans myth that " You only get what you pay for"' has killed not only a lot of cruising dreams, but has sold a lot of overpriced used cars. It's sad that so much time is wasted on the assumption that boaters have endless amounts of cash and time, with only a fraction the time and innovation being spent on recognizing, and dealing with the biggest hurdle to people getting off the treadmill and enjoying the cruisinfg life, namely time and money. While the majority of cruisers cruise on a limited budget , far to many designers , builders and others in the martine industry completely ignore this reality. An endless supply of rich clients, disqualifies a designer and builder from qualifying to deal with a client on a limited budget. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 05:19:22PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > > > I do not know why mentioning boatbuilding standards/rules acts like a > > big red flag on a bull. > > Might be because it's one of those things that amateur boat-builders are > sensitive about. Ya think? > > The average Joe is afraid of things that are different. He's also > terrified by things he doesn't understand (like boats, and water.) By > building a boat, you're weird as hell in the first place (i.e., you're > doing something that so-called "normal" people don't do - OH-OH, IT'S > DIFFERENT!) - and then, because you're already doing this different > thing, "everybody knows" that you should stick to the "tried and true" > and follow the rules and the standards. > > When you don't even do _that,_ the whole world and their great aunt > Sally is going to come by and tell you that you're nuts, past the bend, > three bricks short of a full hod, and should probably be taken to the > loony bin so that you don't disturb those "normal" sheeple. > > A while of putting up with that, and you just might be sensitive too. > I'm not saying that it's right, but I am saying that it's > understandable. > > > 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 > | 25411|25374|2011-02-20 21:54:42|brentswain38|Re: Adding an aft cabin|I have welded flush SS acorn nuts in the transom, to enable experiments with bolt on sugar scoops later. No harm in that, and leaves your options open. Sugar scoops can get dinged, removable is and advantage, if that happens. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > >  The existing deck must be about 360 lbs and I want to raise it 12"  I used > 19500 as starting weight at zero next line was 360 and Z was 12 it moved the COG > .21 not sure if I did it right. > > The image was from Nauticat.com > I also have one showing the 37 with a sugar scoop aft end. Now this is all going > to get a bit yachtie as some would say. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: wild_explorer > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wed, February 16, 2011 11:22:41 AM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Adding an aft cabin > >   > You can try to use spreadsheet in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/Origami_hulls_and_stability/Calculations/ > > > Enter total hull weight (displacement of the boat) with all zeros (X,Y,Z) > > You know how heavy the plates are and the distance you want to move it. Enter it > there as well. It should give you an approximation of the difference in CG for > your changes. > > For more detailed estimate you need to remove plates from one location and add > plates to new location (need to know exact initial center of gravity). Simple > estimate should work fine. > > P.S. Nice image. Do you have more? > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "akenai" wrote: > > > > Brent and anyone else. > > > > I am interested in raising my aft deck and removing the cockpit footwell > > so I could have an aft cabin. How would you go about doing that? I was looking > >at the plans for the center cockpit for deck hights, but I would prefere to keep > >my pilot house as is. Kind of like Alex's boat Shair. How much will that effect > >the CG? > > Aaron > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25412|25279|2011-02-20 22:05:44|brentswain38|Re: flex couplling|I machined a plastic drive saver type out of 3/4" poly cutting board material, to put between the two coupling halves. Been there for several decades. With fexible mounts, you definitley need a flex pipe on your exhaust. I have clamped a piece of high temp silicone hose around my dry exhuast pipe for a year or two, and no sign of it burning. The trick appears to be to get it a foot or two from your engine. May solve the flex exhuast problem. Avoid the super soft Yanmar mounts. Perkos are far more solid, and thus far better. Many of my boats have used flex mounts with a dry exhuast. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, aaron riis wrote: > > Brent > do you use a flex coupling between the engine and shaft.  If  I buy brand new flexible mounts and keep the old ones as spare, will a dry exhaust work? > Aaron > > --- On Mon, 2/14/11, brentswain38 wrote: > > > From: brentswain38 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: flex couplling > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Monday, February 14, 2011, 1:25 PM > > >   > > > > Solid mounting definitely means more noise and vibration, with far more reliability, and less breakdown of anything connected to the engine, as it moves far less. Mine is mounted on cutting board plastic, with PVC bushings and washers,to eliminate the metal to metal contact with the mounting bolts. If I take the engine out, then remount it, I get a few hours of running, before it's time to retighten the bolts, then it can run forever without the need for any further tightening. I wired my mounting bolts the way helicopter bolts are wired, to eliminate any chance of them coming loose. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, aaron riis wrote: > > > > > > I want to have my engine as far aft as I can, thinking about a short floating stuffing box without a flex coupling, the shaft will be less than 4 feet total.  some people say that that increases vibration, but Brent's book talks about solidly mounting the engine.  what do you think?  Aaron > > --- On Thu, 2/10/11, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > > From: brentswain38 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: zinc attachment > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Received: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 5:53 PM > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > At the first opportunity. I like to tack a bit of steel on , connecting one corner of the zinc to the hull, guaranteeing electrical connection. Too much weld makes the straps hard to remove. The ss bolts give the strength you need, the tack is only to guarantee electrical connection. > > Wooden boat builders wouldn't go to sea without wood working tools on board. Would it make sense for steel boat cruisers to not have an alternator welder aboard, when they cost under $50? > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I usually put one Z3 centred on the bottom of the rudder and one each side of the keel- skeg plate. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > > > > > > > Ben-Excellent--Thanks and the ones on the rudder are at the same level??--Just trying to keep from reinventing the wheel here. All the best, 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] > | 25413|25244|2011-02-20 22:08:50|brentswain38|Re: Using Gauss Curvature as a Visualization|The only difference in working is it's more prone to weld distortion. Avoid, as much as possible, welding on curved surfaces above the waterline, after the hull is pulled together. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "boatwayupnorth" wrote: > > > > > Brent, thank you for clearing this up. In your experience, is 4 mm (or the equivalent in inches) much harder to work with than 5? And does it make a difference in ballasting? > Kim, Richard and Martin: thanks a lot for joining in! Brents and your experiences are much appreciated. Thanks for sharing! > Cheers > Walter > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > The stem bar goes to half a meter below the waterline, where the V is deepest, and impact is most likely. Any impact below that is a glancing blow . It can be bent from flat bar, or cut from keel bottom scraps. Being in the deep V it is in , it is completely under compression, and can't go anywhere. I bent mine up from a flat bar, with a hydraulic jack, under a huge bolder. > > The size of the skeg gusset is not important, as it is a huge overkill, spreading impacts with the skeg over a much larger section of hull centreline. I make it 6 inches deep on the single keeler, radiused into gussets on both ends, on the single keeler, and the aft end on the twin keeler, as the photos show. > > I wouldn't rule out 4mm on the 36, just be extremely careful to avoid welding distortion, on the lighter plate. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "boatwayupnorth" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent, regarding the flat bar reinforcement at the inside of the stem: In the plans the only place where I found this indicated is in drawing 3. It seems that the flatbar is to be welded in from the underside of the anchor well downwards. It doesnt say how far down this flatbar is supposed to continue. It also seems that the flatbar has to be bend or cut to fit. Is this correct? If this is not too clear I would be happy to post a picture from this part of the drawing if that is ok with you. > > > > > > I was also wondering about what looks like a big gusset between skeg and keel (for the fin keeler). In the photo section this is visible in the Ocean Pearl and the Austin Hull album. It is indicated in drawings 1 and 6 of the plans you have send me, but there is no detailed drawing with any measurements. Could you provide this? > > > > > > And while I am at it: Here in Europe, steel plate is available as either 4 or 5 mm. 3/16 is equivalent to 4,76 mm. I know you said before that you would recommend 4mm for your 31. Would you rule out going down to 4 mm for the 36? > > > Thanks > > > Walter > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > I just checked your latest post on Gauss curve. Looks good. > > > > Where it suggested my hulls need reinforcement ,there is a lot of reinforcement. > > > ... > > > > The stem has a 2 inch by half inch flat bar on edge, welded inside. > > > > > > > > > > | 25414|25391|2011-02-20 22:12:35|brentswain38|Re: Pre painted and galvanized steel|Could be hard to weld thru the paint, and breath the resulting fumes. What sizes is it available in? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > > Anyone have any experience with this stuff? You'd still have to paint the welds... > > http://www.uss.com/corp/sheet/coated/prepainted-coated.asp > > Thx.Andy > | 25415|25374|2011-02-20 22:24:53|brentswain38|Re: Adding an aft cabin|Yes that would definitley be an improvemnent, something I would do if I were rich . I'd bolt the cabin to a 3 inch high stainless flatbar with goop, rubber washers and tubing to electricaly insulate the aluminium from the steel, and stainless. Then the weight of the cabin would be a non issue. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > I am thinking about switching to an aluminum house and deck that would nock off > several hundred lbs > > > > > ________________________________ > From: brentswain38 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 5:29:14 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Adding an aft cabin > >   > It wouldn't affect the LCG much, as it is mostly the same plate, in a slightly > different configuration. It would raise the VCG a bit, making the boat more > tender, and reducing initial stability. I wouldn't put opening ports at the > front end of the raised portion, as they would act like water scoops in a knock > down, if acidentally left open ( which, Murphy's law being what it is, would be > inevitable at some point in her life). > > When beating off a lee shore at night, I prefer to be in a cockpit , being in > the boat, rather than perched on top of one. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "akenai" wrote: > > > > Brent and anyone else. > > > > I am interested in raising my aft deck and removing the cockpit footwell > > so I could have an aft cabin. How would you go about doing that? I was looking > >at the plans for the center cockpit for deck hights, but I would prefere to keep > >my pilot house as is. Kind of like Alex's boat Shair. How much will that effect > >the CG? > > Aaron > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25416|25374|2011-02-20 22:41:09|Aaron Williams|Re: Adding an aft cabin|I cant see how I would use the current rudder and weathervain with a scoop. ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 5:54:41 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Adding an aft cabin   I have welded flush SS acorn nuts in the transom, to enable experiments with bolt on sugar scoops later. No harm in that, and leaves your options open. Sugar scoops can get dinged, removable is and advantage, if that happens. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > >  The existing deck must be about 360 lbs and I want to raise it 12"  I used > 19500 as starting weight at zero next line was 360 and Z was 12 it moved the >COG > > .21 not sure if I did it right. > > The image was from Nauticat.com > I also have one showing the 37 with a sugar scoop aft end. Now this is all >going > > to get a bit yachtie as some would say. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: wild_explorer > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wed, February 16, 2011 11:22:41 AM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Adding an aft cabin > >   > You can try to use spreadsheet in >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/Origami_hulls_and_stability/Calculations/ >/ > > > Enter total hull weight (displacement of the boat) with all zeros (X,Y,Z) > > You know how heavy the plates are and the distance you want to move it. Enter >it > > there as well. It should give you an approximation of the difference in CG for > your changes. > > For more detailed estimate you need to remove plates from one location and add > plates to new location (need to know exact initial center of gravity). Simple > estimate should work fine. > > P.S. Nice image. Do you have more? > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "akenai" wrote: > > > > Brent and anyone else. > > > > I am interested in raising my aft deck and removing the cockpit footwell > > so I could have an aft cabin. How would you go about doing that? I was >looking > > >at the plans for the center cockpit for deck hights, but I would prefere to >keep > > >my pilot house as is. Kind of like Alex's boat Shair. How much will that >effect > > >the CG? > > Aaron > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25417|25417|2011-02-24 11:40:49|rooster|main hatch dogs|Hi...does anyone have a pic or a good description on how to make a dog for my main hatch...Thanks... it is an aluminum swain style| 25418|25417|2011-02-24 12:58:08|Mark Hamill|Re: main hatch dogs|Rather than make one--go to the SPCA. :) Hi...does anyone have a pic or a good description on how to make a dog for my main hatch...Thanks... it is an aluminum swain style [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25419|25417|2011-02-24 14:16:20|Paul Wilson|DC Charging systems|An excellent article on DC charging systems. I think Norm has posted this before but somehow I missed it..... http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/11/howto/charging/index.htm Cheers, Paul| 25420|17342|2011-02-24 14:44:15|jpronk1|Winches|What size winches should I be looking for, and how many, for a BS 36? I have found a guy who is down in Florida right now and can bring up a bunch for me cheep Thank you, James| 25421|25374|2011-02-24 19:56:15|brentswain38|Re: Adding an aft cabin|I've considered a V cut in the middle of the scoop and a couple more extensions bolted to the rudder, on both sides, to more or less close the V. Needs experimentation, which I have been meaning to try for years. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > I cant see how I would use the current rudder and weathervain with a scoop. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: brentswain38 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 5:54:41 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Adding an aft cabin > >   > I have welded flush SS acorn nuts in the transom, to enable experiments with > bolt on sugar scoops later. No harm in that, and leaves your options open. > Sugar scoops can get dinged, removable is and advantage, if that happens. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > > >  The existing deck must be about 360 lbs and I want to raise it 12"  I used > > 19500 as starting weight at zero next line was 360 and Z was 12 it moved the > >COG > > > > .21 not sure if I did it right. > > > > The image was from Nauticat.com > > I also have one showing the 37 with a sugar scoop aft end. Now this is all > >going > > > > to get a bit yachtie as some would say. > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: wild_explorer > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wed, February 16, 2011 11:22:41 AM > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Adding an aft cabin > > > >   > > You can try to use spreadsheet in > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/Origami_hulls_and_stability/Calculations/ > >/ > > > > > > Enter total hull weight (displacement of the boat) with all zeros (X,Y,Z) > > > > You know how heavy the plates are and the distance you want to move it. Enter > >it > > > > there as well. It should give you an approximation of the difference in CG for > > > your changes. > > > > For more detailed estimate you need to remove plates from one location and add > > > plates to new location (need to know exact initial center of gravity). Simple > > estimate should work fine. > > > > P.S. Nice image. Do you have more? > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "akenai" wrote: > > > > > > Brent and anyone else. > > > > > > I am interested in raising my aft deck and removing the cockpit footwell > > > so I could have an aft cabin. How would you go about doing that? I was > >looking > > > > >at the plans for the center cockpit for deck hights, but I would prefere to > >keep > > > > >my pilot house as is. Kind of like Alex's boat Shair. How much will that > >effect > > > > >the CG? > > > Aaron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25422|25417|2011-02-24 20:05:06|brentswain38|Re: main hatch dogs|There is a photo of one in my book. It's a piece of 3/4 inch ss shaft run thru a piece of 3/4 inch sch 40 ss pipe, with an 1/8th inch flange welded on, to bolt to the hatch. I weld the inside dog, 3/4 shaft to the piece going thru the door and flange , before putting it thru, to make the weld as strong as possible, as this is the weld that will take the greatest load. It's welded at a approximately 20 degree angle to the shaft going thru the door. The weld holding the handle to the shaft is far less critical. I weld the handle at 90 degrees to the dog, as this way gravity holds the dog up preventing accidental complete slamming of the door . You have to lift the handle to completely close the door. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "rooster" wrote: > > Hi...does anyone have a pic or a good description on how to make a dog for my main hatch...Thanks... > it is an aluminum swain style > | 25423|17342|2011-02-24 20:10:39|brentswain38|Re: Winches|Barlow 24s, with a four to one gear ration are minimum, for sheet winches, but within reason, the bigger the better, I have Arco 40s , with an 8 to 1 gear ratio, an overkill , but after many decades of too small winches, I love them. Karl, my neighbour, on a 36 also has huge winches, and I haven't heard any one complain about sheet winches which are too big. For halyards, one to one gear ratios are adequate. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jpronk1" wrote: > > What size winches should I be looking for, and how many, for a BS 36? > I have found a guy who is down in Florida right now and can bring up a bunch for me cheep > Thank you, > James > | 25424|25424|2011-02-24 20:23:44|brentswain38|Thru Hulls|Some have advocated sch 80 mild steel flanges with other stainless flanges bolted to them, with ss ball valves threaded on them. Such mild steel flanges are a maintenance headache getting paint in the inaccessible space under them. They tend to not get any maintenance there, until they become a major problem. This arrangement has absolutely no advantage over simply welding in ss sch 40 pipe nipples, welded directly to the hull, with SS welding rod. I've used this for decades, and dozens of boats , and have never had the slightest problem with them. You can weld them in vertically instead of 90 degrees to the hull plate, saving space . You can extend them to above the waterline as standpipes, and thus put the ball valve above the waterline where it can be removed with the boat still in the water. You have the same thing as with the other arrangement , from the flange up, without the complexity of bolts flanges etc, and potential corrosion problems there, flanges and bolts which add nothing useful to the function of thru hulls. . This is the post which got me kicked off two other sites, Metalboatbuilding.org and metalboatsociety.org . I was told I was banned for "Disagreeing " with other posts.| 25425|25417|2011-02-25 08:55:22|Norm Moore|Re: DC Charging systems|Paul, The article is in the files section. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/Electrical%20Systems/ One of the editors at duckworks saw it on origamiboats and asked me if they could use it. Norm Moore 559-645-5314 ________________________________ From: Paul Wilson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, February 24, 2011 11:16:22 AM Subject: [origamiboats] DC Charging systems An excellent article on DC charging systems. I think Norm has posted this before but somehow I missed it..... http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/11/howto/charging/index.htm Cheers, Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25426|25403|2011-02-25 11:01:55|martin demers|Re: fuel in the bilge?|Thanks for the explanation, it clarifies the situation, now I will know what to answer to those bothering me with; "not allowed to this, not allowed to that...bla,bla,bla..." Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: gcode.fi@... Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 14:06:38 +0100 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] fuel in the bilge? There are 3 different factors at work here, often confused. First, these types of tanks are called integral tanks, ie a welded airtight tank that ends directly on the bottom. They are fine for diesel fuel, but forbidden for gasoline. For those of us who have / use gasoline engines, these types of vessels cannot be insured after a survey, as a survey will note and forbid these types of installations. Any vessels using integral tanks for gasoline may have insurance, where the installation was not noted. This means that in case of accident, the insurance company wil not pay up. Even when you did not cause the accident (whatever the accident was) and you had nothing to do with it. For example, if someone hits you in daylight, with you ashore, and both vessels sink, your own liability insurance will almost certainly not pay out, IF they notice you had integral tanks with gasoline. Legally, they are in the right. This is not permitted by any of the classing societies, abyc, rina, abs, or european small craft directives. After 24 m in length, 12 people as passengers, or commercial vessels, different rules apply. This does not apply to the BS origami designs, as these are far too small to be in that category. Thus, whatever is required for commercial botas, tankers, tugboat, ferries is not material to us in here. So, there are different things at work here; 1. diesel vs. gas 2. inspected and insured (ie classed, or in the US documented, vessels) 3. commercial lareg crafts vs yachts A BS origami boat is in the small private-yachts group. Always unclassed or not "documented which is a US term", I think And varying insurance levels, or none The conclusion; Diesel in integral tanks is fine, legal, and can be inspected/insured/documented subject to other factors. Note that the 4-6M$ Dashews alu yachts, the FPB series, at 16-24 m long, use integral tanks in an alu hull, with no problems. For diesel. > Someone told me that we are not allowed to keep our fuel directly in > the bilge unless it was in a separate fuel tank. I was surprise to > hear that since I have learn in this group how the bilge was welded > and covered in the origami design to keep the fuel. > > Any comments? > Is there some places where they have different rules about this concern? > Can it be different from one province to another one or from one state > to another one? > > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25427|25424|2011-02-25 17:30:41|brentswain38|Re: Thru Hulls|Some have suggested Marlon plastic thru hulls . I suggested they weld a ss sch 40 pipe nipple tot a plate , screw a fitting on it, then try break it off with a sledge hammer. Then try the same with a marlon plastic one. They didn't like me saying that. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Some have advocated sch 80 mild steel flanges with other stainless flanges bolted to them, with ss ball valves threaded on them. Such mild steel flanges are a maintenance headache getting paint in the inaccessible space under them. They tend to not get any maintenance there, until they become a major problem. > This arrangement has absolutely no advantage over simply welding in ss sch 40 pipe nipples, welded directly to the hull, with SS welding rod. I've used this for decades, and dozens of boats , and have never had the slightest problem with them. You can weld them in vertically instead of 90 degrees to the hull plate, saving space . You can extend them to above the waterline as standpipes, and thus put the ball valve above the waterline where it can be removed with the boat still in the water. You have the same thing as with the other arrangement , from the flange up, without the complexity of bolts flanges etc, and potential corrosion problems there, flanges and bolts which add nothing useful to the function of thru hulls. . > This is the post which got me kicked off two other sites, Metalboatbuilding.org and metalboatsociety.org . > I was told I was banned for "Disagreeing " with other posts. > | 25428|25428|2011-02-25 17:56:11|wild_explorer|Hydro-generator|Is it possible to use boat's propeller/shaft in neutral gear as Hydro-generator (let say connected by belt/pulleys to alternator)? Or does it it have too much losses in bearings/transmission?| 25429|25428|2011-02-25 18:06:06|Aaron Williams|Re: Hydro-generator|The Electric boat group people have been working on that for several years with out any great success. Go check them out for more info Aaron ________________________________ From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 1:56:09 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Hydro-generator   Is it possible to use boat's propeller/shaft in neutral gear as Hydro-generator (let say connected by belt/pulleys to alternator)? Or does it it have too much losses in bearings/transmission? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25430|25428|2011-02-25 18:33:18|wild_explorer|Re: Hydro-generator|I cannot see any posts in that group without subscription. Do you have short story why? Losses, speed limit, absense of low RPM alternators/DC-generators? Or is it just more efficient to use outboard dedicated hydro-generator? P.S. Just in case... We are talking about producing electricity, not hydrogen. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > > > The Electric boat group people have been working on that for several years with > out any great success. Go check them out for more info > Aaron > > ________________________________ > From: wild_explorer > >   > Is it possible to use boat's propeller/shaft in neutral gear as Hydro-generator > (let say connected by belt/pulleys to alternator)? Or does it it have too much > losses in bearings/transmission? | 25431|25428|2011-02-25 19:25:32|Aaron Williams|Re: Hydro-generator|Sign up just like this group. Most are that way to avoid the spam. The prop is not designed for drag so far more effecient to have a dedicated unit. Most of the guys using electric motors with regen say it takes 5knts to get any return and it is minimum at best ________________________________ From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 2:33:09 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Hydro-generator   I cannot see any posts in that group without subscription. Do you have short story why? Losses, speed limit, absense of low RPM alternators/DC-generators? Or is it just more efficient to use outboard dedicated hydro-generator? P.S. Just in case... We are talking about producing electricity, not hydrogen. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > > > The Electric boat group people have been working on that for several years with > > out any great success. Go check them out for more info > Aaron > > ________________________________ > From: wild_explorer > >   > Is it possible to use boat's propeller/shaft in neutral gear as Hydro-generator > > (let say connected by belt/pulleys to alternator)? Or does it it have too much > losses in bearings/transmission? Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (3) Recent Activity: * New Members 3 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] | 25432|25428|2011-02-25 19:57:03|wild_explorer|Re: Hydro-generator|Stand alone units have the same problems. 3 knt - to start generate energy, 5-10 knt for rated output. Did anybody try to leave transmission in neutral gear and observed what RPM it produce? If boat has fixed propeller, why not to use it (if it is efficient enough)? It is calculated/designed not to slip in boat's speed range. Main question: What RPMs does it produce depending on boat's speed? Any first hands experience? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > The prop is not designed for drag so far more effecient to have a dedicated > unit. > > Most of the guys using electric motors with regen say it takes 5knts to get any > return and it is minimum at best > | 25433|25433|2011-02-26 07:27:42|normanbywaite|I bought that steel boat in Tasmania|Hi Folks, Well i went ahead and bought that boat i sked you folks about. I've uploaded some photos in a folder caled "Splash" which is the boat's name. i intend to change the name as soon as i feel i've earned the right to, buy fixing her up (i was thnking "Shrew"). As i type this i'm in the cabin, with the dog snoozing next to me on the setee, eating chocolate and smoking cigarettes and listening to my choons on the ipod. So contented I've got sore smiling muscles. I caught the overnight ferry to Tasmania last Tuesday, with the car loaded up with tools and gear, and my furry best friend, left the teenager to her own devices at home, and said i'd be back in a week. I've had the electrics all fixed up, with a new battery, solar panel, much of the wiring, given her a thorough clean up below and pulled some of the headlining out. The to-do list is long, but not too long, and i plan to take the sage advice someone gave on this site; just get everything working, cope with anythng that's 'not-quite-right' and fix those things up as i go. This trip is just to get things started. Next trip in about three weeks is to get her on the slip and start dealing with the handful of surface rust spots, and re-paint. And i apologise again for the fact that i keep posting stuff that's not really about origami boats, i just like talking to you folks about metal boats rather than anyone else. Cheers, Matt SV "Splash" Devonport, Tasmania, Australia| 25434|25434|2011-02-26 07:35:19|normanbywaite|Lining the cabin ceiling|Hello, So i've pulled some of the masonite ceiling to reveal the inside of the cabin roof. It's composed of the flat metal bit with 1 inch flatbar rafters. The ceiling liner was simply screwed to some other narrow pieces of flatbar whose only purpose seems to have been to provide something to screw the masonite on to. What's the best way of covering this? The traditional seems to be just covering it with a thin layer of wood (3 ply?). I was thinking of drilling holes in the flatbar and screwing some wood battens in there, to screw some ply strips to. Is foam isulation compulsory? Or is that only for you folks who live near the arctic circle? Does anyone just glue that interior carpet stuff to the roof? Too fiddly? Hard to get it to stick up there permanently? Hurts too much when you bang your noggin on the (carpet covered) flatbar? Very grateful for any and all ideas. Cheers, Matt| 25435|25433|2011-02-26 08:11:39|James Pronk|Re: I bought that steel boat in Tasmania|Matt Your new boat looks good. Is the steel painted behind the head liner? There had been talk of a paint mixed with small glass beads to use as insulation. I don't know how well it works, but if it did, it would be an option. James --- On Sat, 2/26/11, normanbywaite wrote: From: normanbywaite Subject: [origamiboats] I bought that steel boat in Tasmania To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Saturday, February 26, 2011, 7:27 AM   Hi Folks, Well i went ahead and bought that boat i sked you folks about. I've uploaded some photos in a folder caled "Splash" which is the boat's name. i intend to change the name as soon as i feel i've earned the right to, buy fixing her up (i was thnking "Shrew"). As i type this i'm in the cabin, with the dog snoozing next to me on the setee, eating chocolate and smoking cigarettes and listening to my choons on the ipod. So contented I've got sore smiling muscles. I caught the overnight ferry to Tasmania last Tuesday, with the car loaded up with tools and gear, and my furry best friend, left the teenager to her own devices at home, and said i'd be back in a week. I've had the electrics all fixed up, with a new battery, solar panel, much of the wiring, given her a thorough clean up below and pulled some of the headlining out. The to-do list is long, but not too long, and i plan to take the sage advice someone gave on this site; just get everything working, cope with anythng that's 'not-quite-right' and fix those things up as i go. This trip is just to get things started. Next trip in about three weeks is to get her on the slip and start dealing with the handful of surface rust spots, and re-paint. And i apologise again for the fact that i keep posting stuff that's not really about origami boats, i just like talking to you folks about metal boats rather than anyone else. Cheers, Matt SV "Splash" Devonport, Tasmania, Australia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25436|25428|2011-02-26 09:10:26|scott|Re: Hydro-generator|The short answer is that until you hit 10 plus knots of boat speed the return on a regenerative system using the normal prop isn't worth the effort. For a multihull it seems to work ok if they can make and sustain moderate 2 digit speeds. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Is it possible to use boat's propeller/shaft in neutral gear as Hydro-generator (let say connected by belt/pulleys to alternator)? Or does it it have too much losses in bearings/transmission? > | 25437|25434|2011-02-26 09:19:44|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Lining the cabin ceiling|Congrats ! All metal boats should be insulated, for condensation issues. You can (just) get away without it, if you live in temperate areas, with little variation year-round. Most are foamed. Some foams are toxic in a fire, most will absorb moisture, and before foaming you MUST have good primer and clean steel underneath. If you dont do this, the steel will rust and fail under the foam. The problem is, good foam is expensive. So, if it has been years as-is, with no issues, you might be able to get away with only interior inside walls. Some use interior insulation battens, with all manner of goops, glues hooks etc. I don´t know what is the best option. The problem with glued anything is when something goes wrong, fixes are hard or impossible. There is a great trick to mount the wood battens (we used this in Finland). Instead of drilling, which may be very hard, tiring and diffifcult rent a tool for a day. One of those nailguns with explosive bolts (also compressed air these days, but needs electricity and compressor). Just shoot through the wood firring strips into the metal strips. Takes seconds, in 2 hours you have done the boat. 30$ rents the tool for the day, and saves 20$ in drillbits and 20 hours working above your head. We used no sealants in / under the wood, but had adequate ventilation under the covering so condensation did not form. Holes never rusted, as the wood strips are compressed onto the (painted) steel. And they are not against the cold outside surfaces. Geroge Buehler advocates the green wood preservative, and it is one option. I would not use pressure treated (they are toxic). Coal tar epoxy is a good option, re: primer and underlayment, only messy. I will have the same issue, when I finally start (hope this summer). But I will be buying a big old (real) trawler, so not exactly a BS design. Everything else will be done BS style, though. I planned on sandblast/coaltar/foam, fwiw. > Hello, > So i've pulled some of the masonite ceiling to reveal the inside of > the cabin roof. > It's composed of the flat metal bit with 1 inch flatbar rafters. The > ceiling liner was simply screwed to some other narrow pieces of > flatbar whose only purpose seems to have been to provide something to > screw the masonite on to. > > What's the best way of covering this? The traditional seems to be just > covering it with a thin layer of wood (3 ply?). > I was thinking of drilling holes in the flatbar and screwing some wood > battens in there, to screw some ply strips to. > > Is foam isulation compulsory? Or is that only for you folks who live > near the arctic circle? > > Does anyone just glue that interior carpet stuff to the roof? Too > fiddly? Hard to get it to stick up there permanently? Hurts too much > when you bang your noggin on the (carpet covered) flatbar? > > Very grateful for any and all ideas. > > Cheers, > Matt > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25438|25428|2011-02-26 09:21:47|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Hydro-generator|It´s is much more efficient, cheaper, better to use a couple of big solar panels. Only use 150Watts plus, for good results. Smaller panels product is lost in cables etc. > > The short answer is that until you hit 10 plus knots of boat speed the > return on a regenerative system using the normal prop isn't worth the > effort. For a multihull it seems to work ok if they can make and > sustain moderate 2 digit speeds. > > scott > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "wild_explorer" > wrote: > > > > Is it possible to use boat's propeller/shaft in neutral gear as > Hydro-generator (let say connected by belt/pulleys to alternator)? Or > does it it have too much losses in bearings/transmission? > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25439|25428|2011-02-26 10:54:31|wild_explorer|Re: Hydro-generator|Solar panels are good, but they need sunlight. I am looking at hydrogenerator as a backup option. As I read, main problem of using boat's prop/shaft is very low RPM's output (about 100 RPMs or less). It might require special DC generator (not hard to do) and belt drive system with pulleys to increase RPM's for generator. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > It�s is much more efficient, cheaper, better to use a couple of big > solar panels. > Only use 150Watts plus, for good results. Smaller panels product is lost > in cables etc. > > > > > The short answer is that until you hit 10 plus knots of boat speed the > > return on a regenerative system using the normal prop isn't worth the > > effort. For a multihull it seems to work ok if they can make and > > sustain moderate 2 digit speeds. > > > > scott | 25440|25428|2011-02-26 11:09:49|Mark Hamill|Re: Hydro-generator|I have had good luck with a wind generator--some used to come with a tow option. ----- Original Message ----- From: CNC 6-axis Designs To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 6:22 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Hydro-generator It´s is much more efficient, cheaper, better to use a couple of big solar panels. Only use 150Watts plus, for good results. Smaller panels product is lost in cables etc. > > The short answer is that until you hit 10 plus knots of boat speed the > return on a regenerative system using the normal prop isn't worth the > effort. For a multihull it seems to work ok if they can make and > sustain moderate 2 digit speeds. > > scott > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "wild_explorer" > wrote: > > > > Is it possible to use boat's propeller/shaft in neutral gear as > Hydro-generator (let say connected by belt/pulleys to alternator)? Or > does it it have too much losses in bearings/transmission? > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25441|25428|2011-02-26 11:32:09|Ben Okopnik|Re: Hydro-generator|On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 03:54:30PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > Solar panels are good, but they need sunlight. I am looking at > hydrogenerator as a backup option. As I read, main problem of using > boat's prop/shaft is very low RPM's output (about 100 RPMs or less). > It might require special DC generator (not hard to do) and belt drive > system with pulleys to increase RPM's for generator. In practical terms, a towed generator is nearly useless unless you're trying to circumnavigate the world in two years or whatever - i.e., unless you're sailing constantly. Larry and Lin Pardey, who have done a huge amount of sailing over their many years on the water (Japan to Canada, etc.) figured out from their logs that they have spent less than 2% of their cruising time at sea (and less than 2% of that time in bad weather, another interesting statistic); most cruisers are never going to reach that high of a percentage. When you're sitting in a harbor, a towed generator doesn't do you any good. Wind generators, on the other hand, tend to work best on the bad-weather days - in other words, when the solar panels aren't doing their best. I've had a solar panel/wind generator combo for a lot of years now, and they do indeed work very well together. I'd say that there's maybe one, maximum two days a year when there's no sun _and_ no wind. At all other times, I'm making juice. 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| 25442|25428|2011-02-26 11:33:18|Ben Okopnik|Re: Hydro-generator|On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 08:09:41AM -0800, Mark Hamill wrote: > I have had good luck with a wind generator--some used to come with a tow option. As I recall, all of those essentially gave up some percentage of efficiency for the ability to convert. I don't know that it would be worth it, unless you spent a lot of time at sea. 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| 25443|25434|2011-02-26 13:25:16|Mark Hamill|Re: Lining the cabin ceiling|If you don't have Brents book--I would highly recommend buying a copy--the amount of info tips and projects will cause you to refer to it often--like his suggestions for liners etc. A steal at thrice the price. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25444|25428|2011-02-26 13:49:40|Darren Bos|Re: Hydro-generator|Wild, I'm sure the yahoo group has covered this, but unless you have a reversible pitch propeller it is going to be horribly inefficient when towed. You'd also have the ineffiency of heavy drivetrain components that are designed to absorb the stresses of diesel propulsion, whereas a purpose-built towed generating system could use much lighter components with lower losses. A prop behind a skeg or keel is also going to be in disturbed flow and that is also going to rob you of potential returns. Combined with Ben's arguments about how little time is available to use such a system, it seems like a lot of effort for a very small return. Darren At 07:54 AM 26/02/2011, you wrote: > > >Solar panels are good, but they need sunlight. I >am looking at hydrogenerator as a backup option. >As I read, main problem of using boat's >prop/shaft is very low RPM's output (about 100 >RPMs or less). It might require special DC >generator (not hard to do) and belt drive system >with pulleys to increase RPM's for generator. > >--- In >origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, >CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > > > It�s is much more efficient, cheaper, better to use a couple of big > > solar panels. > > Only use 150Watts plus, for good results. Smaller panels product is lost > > in cables etc. > > > > > > > > The short answer is that until you hit 10 plus knots of boat speed the > > > return on a regenerative system using the normal prop isn't worth the > > > effort. For a multihull it seems to work ok if they can make and > > > sustain moderate 2 digit speeds. > > > > > > scott > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25445|25433|2011-02-26 14:34:11|Denis Buggy|Re: I bought that steel boat in Tasmania|MATT HAVING A DOG WHO SMOKES AND EATS CHOCOLATE IN ITS SLEEP WHILE LISTENING TO AN I POD IS DARWIN GONE MAD -- NEUTER IT QUICK ONE OF THEM IS ENOUGH DENIS BUGGY ----- Original Message ----- From: normanbywaite To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 12:27 PM Subject: [origamiboats] I bought that steel boat in Tasmania Hi Folks, As i type this i'm in the cabin, with the dog snoozing next to me on the setee, eating chocolate and smoking cigarettes and listening to my choons on the ipod. So contented To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com MARKETPLACE Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25446|25428|2011-02-26 18:52:53|Nick Arios|Re: Hydro-generator|How about a system with an appropriate nprop and motor that can be lowered using a stern mounted rail system? Nick ________________________________ From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, February 26, 2011 10:54:30 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Hydro-generator Solar panels are good, but they need sunlight. I am looking at hydrogenerator as a backup option. As I read, main problem of using boat's prop/shaft is very low RPM's output (about 100 RPMs or less). It might require special DC generator (not hard to do) and belt drive system with pulleys to increase RPM's for generator. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > It�s is much more efficient, cheaper, better to use a couple of big > solar panels. > Only use 150Watts plus, for good results. Smaller panels product is lost > in cables etc. > > > > > The short answer is that until you hit 10 plus knots of boat speed the > > return on a regenerative system using the normal prop isn't worth the > > effort. For a multihull it seems to work ok if they can make and > > sustain moderate 2 digit speeds. > > > > scott [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25447|25428|2011-02-27 01:21:15|wild_explorer|Re: Hydro-generator|Thanks to all for input on this subject. It looks like solar panels + good wind generator will be more universal and economical pair. In this case, I can see advantage of hydro-generator only during the storm with shifting wind's velocity and direction. How it was mentioned in previous posts, such conditions do not happens very often with good cruise planning. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > unless you have a reversible pitch propeller it > is going to be horribly inefficient when > towed. You'd also have the ineffiency of heavy > drivetrain components that are designed to absorb > the stresses of diesel propulsion, whereas a > purpose-built towed generating system could use > much lighter components with lower losses. A > prop behind a skeg or keel is also going to be in > disturbed flow and that is also going to rob you of potential returns. > > Combined with Ben's arguments about how little > time is available to use such a system, it seems > like a lot of effort for a very small return. > > Darren | 25448|25434|2011-02-27 02:05:11|normanbywaite|Re: Lining the cabin ceiling|I do have Brent's book at home, but i haven't looked in it for ages. I'll break it out and see what it says about ceiling linings. Underneath the masonite was simply an air gap, then painted steel. There is some rust, but it's all surface rust and it's only around holes made in the deck. So i'm convinced the problem there is water ingress from above, through the deck, rather than condensation. So for want of a better idea, i think i'll just keep it simple deal with the rust, then drill some holes into the flatbar rafters to screw some battens to, then put up strips of some thin veneer like laminex, because i need all the headroom i can get. I'll leave a 1mm or 2mm gap between strips to let air flow around in there. This is indeed a temperate zone. It never gets below freezing or above 40 degrees centigrade.| 25449|25433|2011-02-27 02:06:55|normanbywaite|Re: I bought that steel boat in Tasmania|Yes Dennis, my dog sure has some bad habits.... Matt| 25450|25428|2011-02-27 05:13:44|mauro gonzaga|Re: Hydro-generator|Please read http://www.kastenmarine.com/jasmine.htm about co-generation and electric propulsion: it is totally different from conclusions made on this forum. Does anybody have direct experience? Mauro --- On Sun, 2/27/11, wild_explorer wrote: From: wild_explorer Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Hydro-generator To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, February 27, 2011, 7:21 AM   Thanks to all for input on this subject. It looks like solar panels + good wind generator will be more universal and economical pair. In this case, I can see advantage of hydro-generator only during the storm with shifting wind's velocity and direction. How it was mentioned in previous posts, such conditions do not happens very often with good cruise planning. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > unless you have a reversible pitch propeller it > is going to be horribly inefficient when > towed. You'd also have the ineffiency of heavy > drivetrain components that are designed to absorb > the stresses of diesel propulsion, whereas a > purpose-built towed generating system could use > much lighter components with lower losses. A > prop behind a skeg or keel is also going to be in > disturbed flow and that is also going to rob you of potential returns. > > Combined with Ben's arguments about how little > time is available to use such a system, it seems > like a lot of effort for a very small return. > > Darren [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25451|25428|2011-02-27 13:42:30|Norm Moore|Re: Hydro-generator|As some people have mentioned the people on the Electric Boat forum have thoroughly investigated this by experimentation in the real world, because all of them were earnestly trying to make this work. What they discovered is: 1) the pitch of the propeller must be reversed (flipped around) to work efficiently when towed; 2) that water tends to flow around obstructions in the water like a rock in a river so the towed proppeller didn't generate as much energy as they thought (and calculated) that it would; 3) that the only method they found for improving a towed propeller's performance was to surround the prop in a nozzle to force the water through (like a Kort, or Rice nozzle). All of which really shoots down the hype about regenerative sailing. They concluded that electric propulsion, without a fuel powered generator is only feasible for day sailors that use the motor for the short trip in and out of the marina and can recharge their propulsion batteries overnight hooked to an abundant electrical source. Nigel Calder was investigating this on his latest boondoggle, excuse me manufacturer sponsored boat project "Nada", in a series of articles in Professional Boatbuilder. (Older issues are no longer available unless you subscribe unfortunately.) The first issue looked at the benefits of electric drive (instant maximum torque), over the torque curve of a typical diesel and the efficiencies of generating electricity with the diesel operating at its optimum torque. The second and by far most interesting article in the series looked at the assumptions made by boatbuilders in selecting engines and argues with measurements and graphs derived from his Malo sailboat that a better compromise lies in selecting a lower power engine more suited to calm water cruising, while accepting a lower speed for operating in rough water. His conclusion was that most of the advantage touted by the sellers of electric propulsion systems was achieved simply by selecting this better power compromise. I think, (but don't know), that at that point his articles about the electric propulsion project and the project itself stalled. Perhaps it was because he no longer had anything pleasant to say. To understand why having a generator operate at optimum torque doesn't necessarily mean efficient battery charging you have to first understand how batteries actually accept charge current and the Amp-hour Law, which you can read about in the article I wrote on DC charging systems in the files section under Electrical Systems. Norm Moore 559-645-5314 ________________________________ From: mauro gonzaga To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, February 27, 2011 2:13:36 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Hydro-generator Please read http://www.kastenmarine.com/jasmine.htm about co-generation and electric propulsion: it is totally different from conclusions made on this forum. Does anybody have direct experience? Mauro --- On Sun, 2/27/11, wild_explorer wrote: From: wild_explorer Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Hydro-generator To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, February 27, 2011, 7:21 AM Thanks to all for input on this subject. It looks like solar panels + good wind generator will be more universal and economical pair. In this case, I can see advantage of hydro-generator only during the storm with shifting wind's velocity and direction. How it was mentioned in previous posts, such conditions do not happens very often with good cruise planning. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Darren Bos wrote: > unless you have a reversible pitch propeller it > is going to be horribly inefficient when > towed. You'd also have the ineffiency of heavy > drivetrain components that are designed to absorb > the stresses of diesel propulsion, whereas a > purpose-built towed generating system could use > much lighter components with lower losses. A > prop behind a skeg or keel is also going to be in > disturbed flow and that is also going to rob you of potential returns. > > Combined with Ben's arguments about how little > time is available to use such a system, it seems > like a lot of effort for a very small return. > > Darren [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25452|25428|2011-02-28 08:43:25|scott|Re: Hydro-generator|I'm not sure what you read into what they said that indicates something different than what has been said here. Just because they offer a product that has electric propulsion that has regeneration doesn't meant that it will work well on the regeneration end.. the rest of their system actually sounds pretty good though.. running at the higher voltage for the electric motor that they are will be more efficient. Next thing to mention is that nowhere on there did it mention already built models or any real world observations of the boat or that particular electric drive system. I think that is just their little sales page to try to get someone to pay to build one. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > Please read http://www.kastenmarine.com/jasmine.htm about co-generation and electric propulsion: it is totally different from conclusions made on this forum. Does anybody have direct experience? > Mauro > | 25453|25428|2011-02-28 09:12:14|Aaron Williams|Re: Hydro-generator|I have followed the electric system when it was http://www.solomontechnologies.com/%c2%a0 they look great but far more expensive than anything else on the market. Aaron  ________________________________ From: scott To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, February 28, 2011 4:43:16 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Hydro-generator   I'm not sure what you read into what they said that indicates something different than what has been said here. Just because they offer a product that has electric propulsion that has regeneration doesn't meant that it will work well on the regeneration end.. the rest of their system actually sounds pretty good though.. running at the higher voltage for the electric motor that they are will be more efficient. Next thing to mention is that nowhere on there did it mention already built models or any real world observations of the boat or that particular electric drive system. I think that is just their little sales page to try to get someone to pay to build one. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > Please read http://www.kastenmarine.com/jasmine.htm about co-generation and >electric propulsion: it is totally different from conclusions made on this >forum. Does anybody have direct experience? > Mauro > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25454|25428|2011-02-28 09:23:58|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Hydro-generator|As has been said earlier, the prop use for power generation is very weak, in terms of efficiency. Obviously, if you have a huge prop, and a huge current, and can make the prop turn a generator, some power, however minimal, will be produced. IMO, when these are solutions that have not really been proven to work well by anyone, in that no-one has a sailing vessel with ample power from such an arrangement, it does not really prove that it cannot work, but it proves quite well that a single person is unlikely to make it work efficiently, and certainly not cheaply and easily. This is similar to small solar cells on boats. I was recently (1 year ago) onboard a liveaboard/cruiser, aluminum, in the marina in Tunisia, port el kantaoui. He had 7 different small solar cells, for minimal real power production. Total waste of effort, money and lots of (poor) compromises, imo. I did not have the hart to tell the (very nice) french guy. Years ago (some were old) only small colar cells were affordable. That is no longer the case. A big panel is vastly more efficient, in that all wires carrying low voltage DC loads are quite inefficient. One panel (or set of) needs one regulator, and one set of wires. On a very, very, very energy hungry Nordhavn, they installed a single, note one, solar panel of 150 W (iirc, could be 200W), and dropped their genset usage by 40%. I do admit that large panels are a problem in where you mount them, on a sailboat, and that building a mount is not trivial. Nevertheless, anyone able to make a steel boat of any kind, is certainly able to make a single, high, strong mount that can take 2-4 big panels. People report that even in england, usable charging is accomplished for upto 10 hours a day, even on overcast days. Solar is thus a viable primary-power generating option, imo. It is not on it´s own adequate as the ONLY power generation option, but certainly useful for charging batteries and providing longevity or endurance. > I'm not sure what you read into what they said that indicates > something different than what has been said here. Just because they > offer a product that has electric propulsion that has regeneration > doesn't meant that it will work well on the regeneration end.. the > rest of their system actually sounds pretty good though.. running at > the higher voltage for the electric motor that they are will be more > efficient. > > Next thing to mention is that nowhere on there did it mention already > built models or any real world observations of the boat or that > particular electric drive system. I think that is just their little > sales page to try to get someone to pay to build one. > scott > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , mauro gonzaga > wrote: > > > > Please read http://www.kastenmarine.com/jasmine.htm about > co-generation and electric propulsion: it is totally different from > conclusions made on this forum. Does anybody have direct experience? > > Mauro > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25455|25428|2011-02-28 10:09:52|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Tug conversion|I am considering buying an old steel US Navy Tug, 200 tons, 101 feet, and moving into it to cruise the world. This summer possibly, if I get a big job I am near. Any comments or advice ? I would first change the old engine (air start, 2000 hp) to a 150 Hp caterpillar, and then run it to mexico with all tools and materials for paint etc.| 25456|25428|2011-02-28 10:43:17|Max|Re: Tug conversion|It sounds like a great idea, if you are nuts or have inexhaustible piles of money. For one, you will probably need a commercial license to captain the beast. Depending on your flag of registry, you will probably also need a chief mate. Again, we're back to the piles of money. Why do you need a 100 ft boat? I know that almost no power is needed, theoretically, to drive a boat through flat water, but can 150HP even overcome the windage of a 100ft tug in a gale? Unless you have the aforementioned inexhaustible piles of money for the heavy gear, port fees, agent fees, crew, tonnes of paint etc that you will need, the only way to possibly use this boat to travel (assuming it's in reasonable condition) is to keep the original engine and run some kind of tramping commercial operation with it, like a salvage tug or platform for an unmanned submarine or running barges of cargo up and down the coast. -Max --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > I am considering buying an old steel US Navy Tug, 200 tons, 101 feet, > and moving into it to cruise the world. > This summer possibly, if I get a big job I am near. > > Any comments or advice ? > > I would first change the old engine (air start, 2000 hp) to a 150 Hp > caterpillar, and then run it to mexico with all tools and materials for > paint etc. > | 25457|25428|2011-02-28 13:12:18|Ben Okopnik|Re: Tug conversion|On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 04:07:09PM +0100, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > I am considering buying an old steel US Navy Tug, 200 tons, 101 feet, > and moving into it to cruise the world. > This summer possibly, if I get a big job I am near. > > Any comments or advice ? Wow. That is a whole lot of boat. Something to consider - before I dive into my comments - is that this list may not be the best place to ask for this kind of advice, since your approach is more or less the opposite of the spirit of "do it yourself, go cheap, go now" which is the organizing principle here. That being said, and keeping in mind that I'm talking about generalities only since I don't know your exact boat specifics: Your equipment and maintenance costs are going to be high. Not quite as high as a ratio between typical boat costs and the size increase would imply - there are some large economies of scale, as well as getting away from the whole "yachty" pricing thing - but they're still going to be high. You're less likely to have equipment failures, since you're going to be dealing with massive, overbuilt, and designed-to-be-serviced machinery - but it is an _old_ tug, so there will be failures, and they're going to cost a lot. Especially since at least some of the equipment is likely to be out of production. Your fuel costs are also going to be very high, no matter what engine you use: moving that mass at any kind of reasonable speeds is going to cost in energy. Haul-out prices are going to be up in the "insane" category of costs. Let's not forget the time involvement. Navy tugs were built with an assumption of a relatively large crew, whose full-time job is maintaining their boat. As a result, the designers didn't pay all that much attention to easy maintainability: if you have enough manpower, it's not a valued item (unlike Brent's boats, where it's a critical design issue.) You'll either need to spend a lot of time yourself - even assuming that it's doable by one man - or to hire a crew. And paint, especially in those amounts, is not cheap. And that's just _one_ maintenance issue. There's a lot of machinery that will need to be serviced, lots of bulkheads and floors and ceilings to be scrubbed... I'm not going to go any further into that, but you see where it leads. You're a smart guy, and can figure the rest out yourself. > I would first change the old engine (air start, 2000 hp) to a 150 Hp > caterpillar, and then run it to mexico with all tools and materials for > paint etc. Reducing the built-in power to less than 10% of the original is, in my opinion, a very bad idea. The boat is designed to operate with that amount of available power, and everything about it is going to reflect that. The turning capability, the sea-keeping characteristics, its ability to drive up out of the trough in bad weather are all dependent on that amount of power being available. A 50% reduction might not be unreasonable; a 2/3rds reduction, in general terms, might be the very edge of what is reasonable. A 92.5% reduction would be disastrous in any kind of an emergency situation. 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| 25458|25428|2011-02-28 14:37:53|Paul Wilson|Re: Tug conversion|I am not sure if you are kidding or not but here goes..... In general, tugs are not great sea boats. The aft sections are very low freeboard in order to be able to handle the towing warps. The hulls are inefficient since the props and apertures are huge and they are also quite short and wide for their displacement for maneuverability. I think you would be much better off to convert a fishing boat, ex pilot vessel or ex patrol vessel. The superyacht builder in my home town (Fitzroy yachts) just pulled out of the water an ex navy patrol boat to convert to a yacht. I can't imagine how much bondo they will be putting on it to make the hull fair :). http://www.kahu.aucklandshipbrokers.com/ http://www.fitzroyyachts.com/portfolio.htm Cheers, Paul On 3/1/2011 4:07 AM, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > I am considering buying an old steel US Navy Tug, 200 tons, 101 feet, > and moving into it to cruise the world. > This summer possibly, if I get a big job I am near. > > Any comments or advice ? > > I would first change the old engine (air start, 2000 hp) to a 150 Hp > caterpillar, and then run it to mexico with all tools and materials for > paint etc. > > | 25459|25428|2011-02-28 17:36:04|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Tug conversion|Thanks guys, all comments are valuable, and all are read with a lot of interest. Some comments ... First, I am buying it as a hull-with-systems. -Tanks, chain, anchor, shaft, props, hull, scantlings built to commercial standards. Everything else comes out- but those are the most expensive parts. Everything else I will re-build myself. The power thing ... 150 hp is more power than commercial boats needed then or now, in the 1920-1930s. Similar hulls and boats run on this size engines all over the world. 2000 hp is needed to haul a huge load (2000 ton, ie tanker), hour-on-hour, nor for moving a small boat slowly, like this. 30 man crew, 30-40 m commercial ships used to have 120 hp engines... Work is dead cheap ... where I will go, with all (my) industrial commercial tools on-board. I would use 4-6 man crew on 12-hour shifts to rip out old small-cabin interior walls, sandblast and paint. Only takes 2-3 weeks. Using 3-phase power, plasma cutters that cut 1/4 inch steel at 300 inches / minute (by hand as well) etc. Things like 20 Hp aux engines for compressors, air tools, industrial plasma cutters etc. These will be the first things I bring onboard. 2 welding crews, with helpers, and a hydraulic crane on-the-boat-to-be. I will have every bolt, nut, and gasket on-board before I start. Industrial stuff, by the ton, is dead cheap (in the us, or china). So is paint, about 20 cans maybe, or 300 liters. Could be double, wont affect it too much. I have done this type of purchasing 20 years, and built big projects on time and under budget. Like 2 telcos (with their own networks), general partner to build 30 houses in 2 years, fix 300 person call center etc. etc. Also, I am an ex air force mechanic, with full cnc machine shop on board-to-be. I would like to rise the freeboard, about 120 cm. Likewise, as the old engine comes out, new stuff comes in, to balance the mass. I will probably get a commercial captains license (RYA) and commercial (UK maybe) boat paperwork. I would expect to spend about 60-70k$ on conversion bits and pieces. This is the list with the most balanced, do-it-now, do-it-cheap filosofy. This is how I will go. Just because it is twice the cost of most builds, does not mean it is out of the ballpark. The big clue here is that for industrial pricing, that I use, 100x more stuff only costs 3x more than guys buy at west marine for 3 units. The difference is often 10:1. Please understand I am comfortable buying things in a container from china, and have 20 years professional experience at this. It only costs hundreds to ship tons of stuff, if you are not in a hurry. I am also a divemaster with 20 years experience, to 76 m or 250 feet depths. I would also like to think that I have training and risk judging and risk- acceptance credentials and maturity sufficient for such endeavours. I am not rich, and would invest everything I can get to just be able to do this. However, a running, floating painted, refurbished ship like this is an asset, that has value, as a backup option. I will be able to sell it at a profit, when done.| 25460|25428|2011-02-28 18:30:00|Ben Okopnik|Re: Tug conversion|On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:36:53PM +0100, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > I have done this type of purchasing 20 years, and built big projects on > time and under budget. > Like 2 telcos (with their own networks), general partner to build 30 > houses in 2 years, fix 300 person call center etc. etc. > > Also, I am an ex air force mechanic, with full cnc machine shop on > board-to-be. Those would be the key factors. Without them, you're taking on a huge money-suck; with them, you just might succeed. :) > I would expect to spend about 60-70k$ on conversion bits and pieces. That seems like an awfully small budget for this kind of thing, but given that you have expertise in it... actually, you could probably make a significant amount of money teaching other boat builders how to do this for their projects. I'm sure that I've over-spent ridiculous amounts of money and time on many of my projects - I've never been able to just put together a complete list of parts, etc. and then just get it done. It's always a process of accretion, and lots of rounds of running back to the store. > The big clue here is that for industrial pricing, that I use, 100x more > stuff only costs 3x more than guys buy at west marine for 3 units. > The difference is often 10:1. True enough. Also, the ratio of output power to cost goes *way* down when you buy large powered stuff. For example, a 1gpm pump from WM costs $99, or about $100/gpm; by comparison, a 100gpm industrial electric pump is about $700, or $7/gpm. A 1000gpm pump is only about $3k, or about $3/gpm - a 33-to-1 reduction in price per unit of capacity. Plus, those larger pumps will last for a whole lot of years, and can be serviced easily when they do break down; the $100 gadget from WM will last _maybe_ 3-5 years, and is a throw-away part. That's why buying "marine" stuff sucks. > Please understand I am comfortable buying things in a container from > china, and have 20 years professional experience at this. Again, this would be another make-or-break factor that can turn the whole formula on its head. > I am not rich, and would invest everything I can get to just be able to > do this. > However, a running, floating painted, refurbished ship like this is an > asset, that has value, as a backup option. > I will be able to sell it at a profit, when done. Oh-oh. :) Famous last words... but again, given all that experience, you may well be able to carry it off. 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| 25461|25428|2011-02-28 18:30:23|BrdbMc@aol.com|Re: Tug conversion|Hi I was going to write and wish you good luck but I have gone green with envy. Tugs were always known as all engine and little else,I would think with a smaller engine and a more refined accommodation you would finish up with a very nice dive boat come relaxed cruiser. I was once offered a job on a deep sea tug called Tempest,I was quite keen until learning it spent several months at sea ,I was young and liked the ladies and shore leave to much. Mikeafloat -----Original Message----- From: CNC 6-axis Designs To: origamiboats Sent: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:36 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Tug conversion Thanks guys, all comments are valuable, and all are read with a lot of nterest. Some comments ... irst, I am buying it as a hull-with-systems. Tanks, chain, anchor, shaft, props, hull, scantlings built to ommercial standards. verything else comes out- but those are the most expensive parts. Everything else I will re-build myself. he power thing ... 150 hp is more power than commercial boats needed hen or now, in the 1920-1930s. imilar hulls and boats run on this size engines all over the world. 2000 hp is needed to haul a huge load (2000 ton, ie tanker), our-on-hour, nor for moving a small boat slowly, like this. 0 man crew, 30-40 m commercial ships used to have 120 hp engines... Work is dead cheap ... where I will go, with all (my) industrial ommercial tools on-board. would use 4-6 man crew on 12-hour shifts to rip out old small-cabin nterior walls, sandblast and paint. nly takes 2-3 weeks. sing 3-phase power, plasma cutters that cut 1/4 inch steel at 300 nches / minute (by hand as well) etc. Things like 20 Hp aux engines for compressors, air tools, industrial lasma cutters etc. hese will be the first things I bring onboard. welding crews, with helpers, and a hydraulic crane on-the-boat-to-be. I will have every bolt, nut, and gasket on-board before I start. ndustrial stuff, by the ton, is dead cheap (in the us, or china). o is paint, about 20 cans maybe, or 300 liters. Could be double, wont ffect it too much. have done this type of purchasing 20 years, and built big projects on ime and under budget. ike 2 telcos (with their own networks), general partner to build 30 ouses in 2 years, fix 300 person call center etc. etc. Also, I am an ex air force mechanic, with full cnc machine shop on oard-to-be. I would like to rise the freeboard, about 120 cm. ikewise, as the old engine comes out, new stuff comes in, to balance he mass. I will probably get a commercial captains license (RYA) and commercial UK maybe) boat paperwork. would expect to spend about 60-70k$ on conversion bits and pieces. This is the list with the most balanced, do-it-now, do-it-cheap filosofy. his is how I will go. ust because it is twice the cost of most builds, does not mean it is ut of the ballpark. he big clue here is that for industrial pricing, that I use, 100x more tuff only costs 3x more than guys buy at west marine for 3 units. he difference is often 10:1. Please understand I am comfortable buying things in a container from hina, and have 20 years professional experience at this. t only costs hundreds to ship tons of stuff, if you are not in a hurry. am also a divemaster with 20 years experience, to 76 m or 250 feet depths. would also like to think that I have training and risk judging and isk- acceptance credentials and maturity sufficient for such endeavours. I am not rich, and would invest everything I can get to just be able to o this. owever, a running, floating painted, refurbished ship like this is an sset, that has value, as a backup option. will be able to sell it at a profit, when done. ----------------------------------- 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]| 25462|25462|2011-02-28 19:06:54|Kim|Chine doubler plates.|Brent: In your book (pages 93/94) you mention that chine doubler plates are unnecessary on a twin keeler as the keels protect the chines enough. But do you recommend to put them in anyway on a twin keeler (for general overall strength reasons)? If so, what thickness should they be for the 26-footer? Your book says to use 1/4" (6mm) plate for the 36-footer. Would 3mm or 4mm plate be enough for the 26-footer? Also, I assume the doubler plates could be made from shorter pieces (rather than long pieces the full length of the chine)? Thanks Brent! Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________| 25463|25428|2011-03-01 05:51:32|ka0tp|Re: Tug conversion|There are a number of privately owned Tugs round here in portland, oregon. Almost all of them get moved about once evey few years. I've also looked at buying some bigger old military boats for conversion to yacht/liveaboard, but only once money has not become a problem. Above 25M (80'), there are issues on the Captains License and other requirements needed in some countries. You might as well build A Brent boat also. Use the tug as your movable Home, and the Brent boat as your local water taxi/RV. Remember, skipping One fill of the Tugs tanks will buy you a Brent boat already built. Tom Popp - KA0TP Portland, Oregon MV Darcy Leah and SV San Juan --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > I am considering buying an old steel US Navy Tug, 200 tons, 101 feet, > and moving into it to cruise the world. > This summer possibly, if I get a big job I am near. > > Any comments or advice ? > > I would first change the old engine (air start, 2000 hp) to a 150 Hp > caterpillar, and then run it to mexico with all tools and materials for > paint etc. > | 25464|25428|2011-03-01 09:48:29|Matt Malone|Re: Tug conversion|I guy I know owns a 52 foot multi-deck cabin cruiser. Costs him $3,000 in diesel to go cruising for a week. I cannot imagine what this would cost, even with a replacement engine. Tugs are made to pull big things really slow. To account for the torque caused by the prop pushing from down low, and the rode pulling from a bitt somewhere higher (causing a bow-up pitch), they must have much more flotation in the aft than a normal boat. Because the pull is not always directly backward, and weird things can happen when a wave rolls the boat a little, while it is pulling, they need more roll stability in the aft. All of this means, more drag than a more yacht-like aft. When one is pulling huge things really slow, and getting paid well to do it, the cost of fuel is just a cost of doing business. If one is not towing large things slow, but trying to cruise at a moderate speed, this is just going to be a fuel-cost-inducing liability. If you are looking for something that floats, that never goes anywhere, good choice. If you have the money to cruise this, you have the money to pay someone to fold you up a 60 ft orgami, and buy a set of dacron sails, and actually go somewhere. Alternately, if you are getting this tug for way less than scrap metal value then there is the potential of a complete redesign to a sailing boat. It might include scrapping out everything you do not need, take it down to the deck level, add low ballast, a keel fin to reduce leeway, put on a couple of dog houses, a couple of masts, some sails from a couple of 40 footers, a pirate flag, and sail really slow. Of course just hauling the thing out would take a serious commercial shipyard at thousands of dollars a day... It might only take $2000 in paint to redo the bottom if you go cheap and you do it yourself, but it will take minimum 2 weeks, and how much in yard fees. There was a freighter that some affectionately refer to as a former garbage scow that was converted into a faux tall-ship that now tours Toronto Harbour and the Islands. A friend of mine was on it when there was a good storm on Lake Ontario and its un-yacht-like hull shape betrayed itself by providing such a rough, rolling ride as to break every piece of glassware and dinnerware on the entire ship. I have to agree with another poster, everything about this is so far outside this group, that I am not sure we are presenting even the beginning of the issues you might have. Yes, professional captain and mate -- likely -- but ask a merchant seaman about all the systems ships have that just do not show up on a private yacht... You might be forced to meet modern commercial standards in any sort of refit, particularly for fire protection, with special meaning for the battery room, the engine room, galley etc. You might be required to have commercial grade nav equipment, AIS, radar. I doubt we could even give you an idea of the regulatory hassles you might have. And inspections... I bet the Coast Guard would really like to thoroughly inspect this because this is one big-ass ship. In the wrong hands, or with a malfunction, it might sink a ferry. Then the insurance... There is probably a good reason the Navy is selling it off for less than scrap metal value. Pay someone to fold you up a 60 ft orgami (less than 20 meters), and buy a set of tough dacron sails, and actually go somewhere. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: gcode.fi@... Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:07:09 +0100 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Tug conversion I am considering buying an old steel US Navy Tug, 200 tons, 101 feet, and moving into it to cruise the world. This summer possibly, if I get a big job I am near. Any comments or advice ? I would first change the old engine (air start, 2000 hp) to a 150 Hp caterpillar, and then run it to mexico with all tools and materials for paint etc. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25465|25465|2011-03-02 14:12:55|JJ & Irene|(no subject)|Good Luck on your conversion. IMHO 150 hp is about 1/6 of the minimum power you will need. You will find that even though 2000 hp is more than needed, 750 hp will be the lowest power to stay out of trouble (depending on the area of the superstructure of course).   You did not mention where you will use this tug. If you were on the east coast or gulf coast you might consider pushing barges to the Virgin Islands or Central/South America. I know of one company that delivers fuel to Guatemala & Honduras from Houston. They stay busy year round making very good money. Just guessing from the power that you currently have, you might be legal pushing up to 6 - 300 ft barges without any trouble; that's a lot of fuel! (maybe 750,000 gallons per barge, read that as DOLLARS in your pocket) After deducting all expenses I can easily see $6000 per barge per trip as your personal income.   Now I'm in Trouble! The wife just read this posting and wants to know why I haven't been doing this for the last 7 years. She says that I'm spending to much time at home. Jewel (aka JJ) & Irene Johnson Rockport, Texas     [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25466|25428|2011-03-02 15:08:49|mauro gonzaga|Re: Hydro-generator|Kasten with his Lucille   http://www.kastenmarine.com/jasmine.htm%c2%a0%c2%a0 apparently thinks different. mauro --- On Mon, 2/28/11, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: From: CNC 6-axis Designs Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Hydro-generator To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, February 28, 2011, 3:22 PM   As has been said earlier, the prop use for power generation is very weak, in terms of efficiency. Obviously, if you have a huge prop, and a huge current, and can make the prop turn a generator, some power, however minimal, will be produced. IMO, when these are solutions that have not really been proven to work well by anyone, in that no-one has a sailing vessel with ample power from such an arrangement, it does not really prove that it cannot work, but it proves quite well that a single person is unlikely to make it work efficiently, and certainly not cheaply and easily. This is similar to small solar cells on boats. I was recently (1 year ago) onboard a liveaboard/cruiser, aluminum, in the marina in Tunisia, port el kantaoui. He had 7 different small solar cells, for minimal real power production. Total waste of effort, money and lots of (poor) compromises, imo. I did not have the hart to tell the (very nice) french guy. Years ago (some were old) only small colar cells were affordable. That is no longer the case. A big panel is vastly more efficient, in that all wires carrying low voltage DC loads are quite inefficient. One panel (or set of) needs one regulator, and one set of wires. On a very, very, very energy hungry Nordhavn, they installed a single, note one, solar panel of 150 W (iirc, could be 200W), and dropped their genset usage by 40%. I do admit that large panels are a problem in where you mount them, on a sailboat, and that building a mount is not trivial. Nevertheless, anyone able to make a steel boat of any kind, is certainly able to make a single, high, strong mount that can take 2-4 big panels. People report that even in england, usable charging is accomplished for upto 10 hours a day, even on overcast days. Solar is thus a viable primary-power generating option, imo. It is not on it´s own adequate as the ONLY power generation option, but certainly useful for charging batteries and providing longevity or endurance. > I'm not sure what you read into what they said that indicates > something different than what has been said here. Just because they > offer a product that has electric propulsion that has regeneration > doesn't meant that it will work well on the regeneration end.. the > rest of their system actually sounds pretty good though.. running at > the higher voltage for the electric motor that they are will be more > efficient. > > Next thing to mention is that nowhere on there did it mention already > built models or any real world observations of the boat or that > particular electric drive system. I think that is just their little > sales page to try to get someone to pay to build one. > scott > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , mauro gonzaga > wrote: > > > > Please read http://www.kastenmarine.com/jasmine.htm about > co-generation and electric propulsion: it is totally different from > conclusions made on this forum. Does anybody have direct experience? > > Mauro > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25467|25428|2011-03-02 15:43:22|Barney Treadway|Re: Hydro-generator|That lucille spends some time as my desktop background. Nice boat. Although colvin's kung futse is there most of the time. mauro gonzaga wrote: >Kasten with his Lucille   http://www.kastenmarine.com/jasmine.htm%c2%a0%c2%a0 apparently thinks different. >mauro >--- On Mon, 2/28/11, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > >From: CNC 6-axis Designs >Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Hydro-generator >To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >Date: Monday, February 28, 2011, 3:22 PM > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > As has been said earlier, the prop use for power generation is very > >weak, in terms of efficiency. > >Obviously, if you have a huge prop, and a huge current, and can make the > >prop turn a generator, some power, however minimal, will be produced. > > > >IMO, when these are solutions that have not really been proven to work > >well by anyone, in that no-one has a sailing vessel with ample power > >from such an arrangement, it does not really prove that it cannot work, > >but it proves quite well that a single person is unlikely to make it > >work efficiently, and certainly not cheaply and easily. > >This is similar to small solar cells on boats. > >I was recently (1 year ago) onboard a liveaboard/cruiser, aluminum, in > >the marina in Tunisia, port el kantaoui. > >He had 7 different small solar cells, for minimal real power production. > >Total waste of effort, money and lots of (poor) compromises, imo. I did > >not have the hart to tell the (very nice) french guy. > > > >Years ago (some were old) only small colar cells were affordable. That > >is no longer the case. > >A big panel is vastly more efficient, in that all wires carrying low > >voltage DC loads are quite inefficient. > >One panel (or set of) needs one regulator, and one set of wires. > > > >On a very, very, very energy hungry Nordhavn, they installed a single, > >note one, solar panel of 150 W (iirc, could be 200W), and dropped their > >genset usage by 40%. > >I do admit that large panels are a problem in where you mount them, on a > >sailboat, and that building a mount is not trivial. > >Nevertheless, anyone able to make a steel boat of any kind, is certainly > >able to make a single, high, strong mount that can take 2-4 big panels. > > > >People report that even in england, usable charging is accomplished for > >upto 10 hours a day, even on overcast days. > >Solar is thus a viable primary-power generating option, imo. It is not > >on it´s own adequate as the ONLY power generation option, but certainly > >useful for charging batteries and providing longevity or endurance. > > > >> I'm not sure what you read into what they said that indicates > >> something different than what has been said here. Just because they > >> offer a product that has electric propulsion that has regeneration > >> doesn't meant that it will work well on the regeneration end.. the > >> rest of their system actually sounds pretty good though.. running at > >> the higher voltage for the electric motor that they are will be more > >> efficient. > >> > >> Next thing to mention is that nowhere on there did it mention already > >> built models or any real world observations of the boat or that > >> particular electric drive system. I think that is just their little > >> sales page to try to get someone to pay to build one. > >> scott > >> > >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > >> , mauro gonzaga > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > Please read http://www.kastenmarine.com/jasmine.htm about > >> co-generation and electric propulsion: it is totally different from > >> conclusions made on this forum. Does anybody have direct experience? > >> > Mauro > >> > > >> > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25468|25468|2011-03-02 20:29:53|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|grease for rust protection|Hi Brent, Is it a good idea to cover lightly rusted spot inside a steel sailboat with marine grease, to protect against rusting, until major sanding and epoxy painting is done? Martin.| 25469|25468|2011-03-02 20:34:29|David Frantz|Re: grease for rust protection|Well I'd have to say no, not that you are asking me but there are a couple of issues here. Oil and some greases float so where you use the material is an issue. Second clean up to get a good primer bond will be far more difficult. I would think a cheap can of primer would serve you better. On Mar 2, 2011, at 8:29 PM000, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > Hi Brent, > > Is it a good idea to cover lightly rusted spot inside a steel sailboat with marine grease, to protect against rusting, until major sanding and epoxy painting is done? > > Martin. > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 25470|25470|2011-03-04 00:35:33|DAVE|Looking for a surveyor with a thickness gauge for Port Townsend-BS 3|Greetings, Suggestions on where to get a good surveyor for a BS 36 on the hard now in Port Tonwsend... Thanks in advance.. Dave Davis| 25471|25471|2011-03-04 01:15:55|Richard Payne|Covering rust with grease.|Yes, covering a rust spot with grease is much more effective than painting over it. Chip it back as much as possible and then use a lanolin based grease (Lanocote?). As a previous poster noted, mineral oil based grease is not as good. I have held bits like this for up to five years with no apparent progression of the corrosion. If you have a new paint chip, smear of five minute Araldite or similar will hold it until you have time to deal with it. Regards, Richard.| 25472|25470|2011-03-04 03:57:02|martin demers|Re: Looking for a surveyor with a thickness gauge for Port Townsend-|you can get a thickness gauge on ebay for less than $200.00 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: dave@... Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 05:31:03 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Looking for a surveyor with a thickness gauge for Port Townsend-BS 36 Greetings, Suggestions on where to get a good surveyor for a BS 36 on the hard now in Port Tonwsend... Thanks in advance.. Dave Davis [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25473|25428|2011-03-04 05:53:02|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Tug conversion|Cruising a 70 metric ton steel 24 m long displacement boat I mentioned, costs about 1000$-2000 USD / year. Using the previously mentioned 100 hp engine. The engine is off a diesel train, an "ukko-pekkka" and is vastly overpowered for the boat. The prop spins like an blender blade at any significant throttle. My friend, who lifted and installed it into the boat himself, has never bothered to change the prop in the last 10 years, what for ... ? If it works well and reliably, is cheap, and you get more than enough speed, call it good and thats it. I expect that I would get about 150-250 litres/day at full throttle cruising speed consumption, at around 11-12 knots, or 90% of "hull speed". The probably error is 25% and will tend towards the lower end. Crossing the atlantic would consume about 1500 litres (upto 3000). Note that I can tank, every 1-2 years, in venezuela at 0.15$ / litre. Likewise, this is nearly my first stop after taking delivery. Tankage is 24.000 litres, and at 100 days steaming, 300 miles day, 30.000 nautical miles or non-stop around the world. I will proceed with the project by getting plans and documents, while working towards funding it. Likewise, I will try to arrange a charter (dive trip, salvage, documentary) and or work before buying it. > I guy I know owns a 52 foot multi-deck cabin cruiser. Costs him $3,000 in diesel to go cruising for a week. I cannot imagine what this would cost, even with a replacement engine. | 25474|25428|2011-03-04 13:17:57|Matt Malone|Re: Tug conversion|>Note that I can tank, every 1-2 years, in venezuela at 0.15$ / litre. Yes, that would be nice. That is about 75 cents a Canadian gallon. I think it was 1980 when I last saw that price. How is it that Venezuela charges less than the going rate for crude oil for a refined product ? Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: gcode.fi@... Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 10:52:48 +0100 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Tug conversion Cruising a 70 metric ton steel 24 m long displacement boat I mentioned, costs about 1000$-2000 USD / year. Using the previously mentioned 100 hp engine. The engine is off a diesel train, an "ukko-pekkka" and is vastly overpowered for the boat. The prop spins like an blender blade at any significant throttle. My friend, who lifted and installed it into the boat himself, has never bothered to change the prop in the last 10 years, what for ... ? If it works well and reliably, is cheap, and you get more than enough speed, call it good and thats it. I expect that I would get about 150-250 litres/day at full throttle cruising speed consumption, at around 11-12 knots, or 90% of "hull speed". The probably error is 25% and will tend towards the lower end. Crossing the atlantic would consume about 1500 litres (upto 3000). Note that I can tank, every 1-2 years, in venezuela at 0.15$ / litre. Likewise, this is nearly my first stop after taking delivery. Tankage is 24.000 litres, and at 100 days steaming, 300 miles day, 30.000 nautical miles or non-stop around the world. I will proceed with the project by getting plans and documents, while working towards funding it. Likewise, I will try to arrange a charter (dive trip, salvage, documentary) and or work before buying it. > I guy I know owns a 52 foot multi-deck cabin cruiser. Costs him $3,000 in diesel to go cruising for a week. I cannot imagine what this would cost, even with a replacement engine. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25475|25428|2011-03-04 13:45:44|Ben Okopnik|Re: Tug conversion|On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 01:17:55PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > >Note that I can tank, every 1-2 years, in venezuela at 0.15$ / litre. > > Yes, that would be nice. That is about 75 cents a Canadian gallon. I think it was 1980 when I last saw that price. > > How is it that Venezuela charges less than the going rate for crude oil for a refined product ? From Wikipedia: Fuel subsidies are common in oil-rich countries. Venezuela, which has vast oil reserves, maintains a price of Bs.F 0.097 per litre (around US$0.02), and has done so since 1998. The $0.15/liter price is what they charge us rich tourists. :) I know a guy who spends most of his time in the Bahamas on his huge powerboat; whenever he runs out of money, he takes a trip to Venezuela and fills up his 6,000 gallon tank. When he gets back, he sells most of it to the local dockmaster, who is very happy to make a buck per gallon, and lives on the proceeds. Lather, rinse, repeat... last I heard, he'd been at it for more than a decade. 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| 25476|25428|2011-03-04 15:45:08|Denis Buggy|Re: Tug conversion|if anybody has information on discounted diesel I would be glad to hear more about southamerican diesel -- or cheap diesel anywhere also re the tug engines. it sounds like there is a very large prop probably shrouded hopefully there are two props close together then you may be able to shut one down now and again -- if this helps -- my choice of engines for you would be the ones chosen by many one off boat builders and the firm choice of many offshore work boats THE ENGINE IS THE STRAIGHT 6 SCANIA DSC11 which is a legendary truck engine which is a million miler at its ease -- very well put together and a simple cheap set of tools is all you need to adjust --tighten any bits and pieces -- it holds the record for years for efficiency converting fuel to energy I believe at 45% which is much better than most and it is easy to start and is non electronic therefore it can withstand a lightning strike and continue to run -- it has a high pressure simple fuel system which is responsible for the good atomizing of the fuel and it is that rare thing a simple engine designed by sophisticated engineers . power output approx 360 bhp per engine . these trucks are the dream machine of rural African heavy haulage co where their simple reliability makes them king and loyal servant combined . you can also choose the v8 version of this engine at 450 bhp each this is thirstier however shares the same pistons and liners and is equally good . I would love to see you strap a couple of 150 bhp outboard engines to the rear of this tug of yours and go for a spin around the block and return against the tide -- it would be great to see a little u tube video of the results . the little I how about tugs is mainly how they achieve bollard pull power -- at a very slow speed which is all they do really well -- their design is usually either a harbour tug which works at a very slow speed for all of its life and need not concern itself greatly with hull speed or a different animal a ocean going tug which does what it says on the tin . if you are trying to make a harbour tug an ocean tug expect trouble -- big trouble . if you take away its legs and heart dont expect much action when action is called for . denis buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Okopnik To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 6:45 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Tug conversion On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 01:17:55PM -0500, Matt Malone wrote: > > >Note that I can tank, every 1-2 years, in venezuela at 0.15$ / litre. > > Yes, that would be nice. That is about 75 cents a Canadian gallon. I think it was 1980 when I last saw that price. > > How is it that Venezuela charges less than the going rate for crude oil for a refined product ? From Wikipedia: Fuel subsidies are common in oil-rich countries. Venezuela, which has vast oil reserves, maintains a price of Bs.F 0.097 per litre (around US$0.02), and has done so since 1998. The $0.15/liter price is what they charge us rich tourists. :) I know a guy who spends most of his time in the Bahamas on his huge powerboat; whenever he runs out of money, he takes a trip to Venezuela and fills up his 6,000 gallon tank. When he gets back, he sells most of it to the local dockmaster, who is very happy to make a buck per gallon, and lives on the proceeds. Lather, rinse, repeat... last I heard, he'd been at it for more than a decade. 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] | 25477|25462|2011-03-04 18:47:12|brentswain38|Re: Chine doubler plates.|The reason for chine doublers is because when a single keeler hits the beach, initially, the only two places which make contact are the chine and the bottom of the keel. If those are bullet proof, there is little chance the beach will hit anything else. As this is not the case with twin keelers, there is little point in using chine doublers on a twin keeler. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Brent: In your book (pages 93/94) you mention that chine doubler plates are unnecessary on a twin keeler as the keels protect the chines enough. But do you recommend to put them in anyway on a twin keeler (for general overall strength reasons)? > > If so, what thickness should they be for the 26-footer? Your book says to use 1/4" (6mm) plate for the 36-footer. Would 3mm or 4mm plate be enough for the 26-footer? Also, I assume the doubler plates could be made from shorter pieces (rather than long pieces the full length of the chine)? > > Thanks Brent! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > | 25478|25403|2011-03-04 18:56:28|brentswain38|Re: fuel in the bilge?|The big problem with removeable tanks in a steel hull, is inaccesibility to the space between the tank and the hull, which is unlikely to be seen or maintained, until it becomes a major problem. When that part of the hull is the bottom of a tank with a window in the top , you can check it anytime, by simply lifting the floor boards. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Thanks for the explanation, it clarifies the situation, now I will know what to answer to those bothering me with; "not allowed to this, not allowed to that...bla,bla,bla..." > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: gcode.fi@... > Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 14:06:38 +0100 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] fuel in the bilge? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are 3 different factors at work here, often confused. > > > > First, these types of tanks are called integral tanks, ie a welded > > airtight tank that ends directly on the bottom. > > They are fine for diesel fuel, but forbidden for gasoline. > > For those of us who have / use gasoline engines, these types of vessels > > cannot be insured after a survey, as a survey will note and forbid these > > types of installations. > > > > Any vessels using integral tanks for gasoline may have insurance, where > > the installation was not noted. > > This means that in case of accident, the insurance company wil not pay up. > > Even when you did not cause the accident (whatever the accident was) and > > you had nothing to do with it. > > > > For example, if someone hits you in daylight, with you ashore, and both > > vessels sink, your own liability insurance will almost certainly not pay > > out, IF they notice you had integral tanks with gasoline. > > Legally, they are in the right. > > This is not permitted by any of the classing societies, abyc, rina, abs, > > or european small craft directives. > > > > After 24 m in length, 12 people as passengers, or commercial vessels, > > different rules apply. This does not apply to the BS origami designs, as > > these are far too small to be in that category. > > Thus, whatever is required for commercial botas, tankers, tugboat, > > ferries is not material to us in here. > > > > So, there are different things at work here; > > 1. diesel vs. gas > > 2. inspected and insured (ie classed, or in the US documented, vessels) > > 3. commercial lareg crafts vs yachts > > > > A BS origami boat is in the small private-yachts group. > > Always unclassed or not "documented which is a US term", I think > > And varying insurance levels, or none > > > > The conclusion; > > Diesel in integral tanks is fine, legal, and can be > > inspected/insured/documented subject to other factors. > > > > Note that the 4-6M$ Dashews alu yachts, the FPB series, at 16-24 m long, > > use integral tanks in an alu hull, with no problems. For diesel. > > > > > Someone told me that we are not allowed to keep our fuel directly in > > > the bilge unless it was in a separate fuel tank. I was surprise to > > > hear that since I have learn in this group how the bilge was welded > > > and covered in the origami design to keep the fuel. > > > > > > Any comments? > > > Is there some places where they have different rules about this concern? > > > Can it be different from one province to another one or from one state > > > to another one? > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25479|25428|2011-03-04 18:58:01|brentswain38|Re: Hydro-generator|When you have enough wind to power a hydro generator , you have enough to power a couple of wind genertators, without the drag. A friend used an outboard prop from his stern quarter, to power his hydro generator, , producing enouhgh to run his freezer in the Caribean, where winds are strong and reliable. Much simpler an dleas drag than an engine shaft thru a stuffing box. Lets you use an optimum prop for the job, as well. One can put in a small stuffing boxe in the transom, to get the generator closer to the water for a shorter line and to put the generator out of the weather , below decks. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Is it possible to use boat's propeller/shaft in neutral gear as Hydro-generator (let say connected by belt/pulleys to alternator)? Or does it it have too much losses in bearings/transmission? > | 25480|25434|2011-03-04 19:03:07|brentswain38|Re: Lining the cabin ceiling|3 ply is best, Foam is mandatory for colder lattitudes , but not mandatory for warmer ones. Just makes the boat a lot quieter. You will know it if you need it. Till then, just go cruising. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "normanbywaite" wrote: > > Hello, > So i've pulled some of the masonite ceiling to reveal the inside of the cabin roof. > It's composed of the flat metal bit with 1 inch flatbar rafters. The ceiling liner was simply screwed to some other narrow pieces of flatbar whose only purpose seems to have been to provide something to screw the masonite on to. > > What's the best way of covering this? The traditional seems to be just covering it with a thin layer of wood (3 ply?). > I was thinking of drilling holes in the flatbar and screwing some wood battens in there, to screw some ply strips to. > > Is foam isulation compulsory? Or is that only for you folks who live near the arctic circle? > > Does anyone just glue that interior carpet stuff to the roof? Too fiddly? Hard to get it to stick up there permanently? Hurts too much when you bang your noggin on the (carpet covered) flatbar? > > Very grateful for any and all ideas. > > Cheers, > Matt > | 25481|25434|2011-03-04 19:06:26|brentswain38|Re: Lining the cabin ceiling|You want far more than mere primer under foam. You want at least three coats of thick epoxy tar. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > Congrats ! > > All metal boats should be insulated, for condensation issues. > You can (just) get away without it, if you live in temperate areas, with > little variation year-round. > > Most are foamed. > Some foams are toxic in a fire, most will absorb moisture, and before > foaming you MUST have good primer and clean steel underneath. > If you dont do this, the steel will rust and fail under the foam. > > The problem is, good foam is expensive. > > So, if it has been years as-is, with no issues, you might be able to get > away with only interior inside walls. > Some use interior insulation battens, with all manner of goops, glues > hooks etc. > I don´t know what is the best option. > > The problem with glued anything is when something goes wrong, fixes are > hard or impossible. > > There is a great trick to mount the wood battens (we used this in Finland). > Instead of drilling, which may be very hard, tiring and diffifcult rent > a tool for a day. > One of those nailguns with explosive bolts (also compressed air these > days, but needs electricity and compressor). > Just shoot through the wood firring strips into the metal strips. > Takes seconds, in 2 hours you have done the boat. > 30$ rents the tool for the day, and saves 20$ in drillbits and 20 hours > working above your head. > > We used no sealants in / under the wood, but had adequate ventilation > under the covering so condensation did not form. > Holes never rusted, as the wood strips are compressed onto the (painted) > steel. And they are not against the cold outside surfaces. > > Geroge Buehler advocates the green wood preservative, and it is one option. > I would not use pressure treated (they are toxic). > Coal tar epoxy is a good option, re: primer and underlayment, only messy. > > I will have the same issue, when I finally start (hope this summer). > But I will be buying a big old (real) trawler, so not exactly a BS design. > Everything else will be done BS style, though. > I planned on sandblast/coaltar/foam, fwiw. > > > Hello, > > So i've pulled some of the masonite ceiling to reveal the inside of > > the cabin roof. > > It's composed of the flat metal bit with 1 inch flatbar rafters. The > > ceiling liner was simply screwed to some other narrow pieces of > > flatbar whose only purpose seems to have been to provide something to > > screw the masonite on to. > > > > What's the best way of covering this? The traditional seems to be just > > covering it with a thin layer of wood (3 ply?). > > I was thinking of drilling holes in the flatbar and screwing some wood > > battens in there, to screw some ply strips to. > > > > Is foam isulation compulsory? Or is that only for you folks who live > > near the arctic circle? > > > > Does anyone just glue that interior carpet stuff to the roof? Too > > fiddly? Hard to get it to stick up there permanently? Hurts too much > > when you bang your noggin on the (carpet covered) flatbar? > > > > Very grateful for any and all ideas. > > > > Cheers, > > Matt > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25482|25428|2011-03-04 19:09:48|brentswain38|Re: Tug conversion|Looks like huge fuel bills. Check that out before you buy. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > I am considering buying an old steel US Navy Tug, 200 tons, 101 feet, > and moving into it to cruise the world. > This summer possibly, if I get a big job I am near. > > Any comments or advice ? > > I would first change the old engine (air start, 2000 hp) to a 150 Hp > caterpillar, and then run it to mexico with all tools and materials for > paint etc. > | 25483|25428|2011-03-04 19:16:22|brentswain38|Re: Hydro-generator|Excessive rake in the rudder makes such a boat heavy on the helm and drastcally reduces rudder efficiency. Bare aluminium is OK in high latitudes , but in the tropical sun, it will burn the skin off your feet, etc. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > Kasten with his Lucille   http://www.kastenmarine.com/jasmine.htm%c3%82%c2%a0%c3%82%c2%a0 apparently thinks different. > mauro > --- On Mon, 2/28/11, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > From: CNC 6-axis Designs > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Hydro-generator > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Monday, February 28, 2011, 3:22 PM > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > As has been said earlier, the prop use for power generation is very > > weak, in terms of efficiency. > > Obviously, if you have a huge prop, and a huge current, and can make the > > prop turn a generator, some power, however minimal, will be produced. > > > > IMO, when these are solutions that have not really been proven to work > > well by anyone, in that no-one has a sailing vessel with ample power > > from such an arrangement, it does not really prove that it cannot work, > > but it proves quite well that a single person is unlikely to make it > > work efficiently, and certainly not cheaply and easily. > > This is similar to small solar cells on boats. > > I was recently (1 year ago) onboard a liveaboard/cruiser, aluminum, in > > the marina in Tunisia, port el kantaoui. > > He had 7 different small solar cells, for minimal real power production. > > Total waste of effort, money and lots of (poor) compromises, imo. I did > > not have the hart to tell the (very nice) french guy. > > > > Years ago (some were old) only small colar cells were affordable. That > > is no longer the case. > > A big panel is vastly more efficient, in that all wires carrying low > > voltage DC loads are quite inefficient. > > One panel (or set of) needs one regulator, and one set of wires. > > > > On a very, very, very energy hungry Nordhavn, they installed a single, > > note one, solar panel of 150 W (iirc, could be 200W), and dropped their > > genset usage by 40%. > > I do admit that large panels are a problem in where you mount them, on a > > sailboat, and that building a mount is not trivial. > > Nevertheless, anyone able to make a steel boat of any kind, is certainly > > able to make a single, high, strong mount that can take 2-4 big panels. > > > > People report that even in england, usable charging is accomplished for > > upto 10 hours a day, even on overcast days. > > Solar is thus a viable primary-power generating option, imo. It is not > > on it´s own adequate as the ONLY power generation option, but certainly > > useful for charging batteries and providing longevity or endurance. > > > > > I'm not sure what you read into what they said that indicates > > > something different than what has been said here. Just because they > > > offer a product that has electric propulsion that has regeneration > > > doesn't meant that it will work well on the regeneration end.. the > > > rest of their system actually sounds pretty good though.. running at > > > the higher voltage for the electric motor that they are will be more > > > efficient. > > > > > > Next thing to mention is that nowhere on there did it mention already > > > built models or any real world observations of the boat or that > > > particular electric drive system. I think that is just their little > > > sales page to try to get someone to pay to build one. > > > scott > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > , mauro gonzaga > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Please read http://www.kastenmarine.com/jasmine.htm about > > > co-generation and electric propulsion: it is totally different from > > > conclusions made on this forum. Does anybody have direct experience? > > > > Mauro > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25484|25468|2011-03-04 19:18:40|brentswain38|Re: grease for rust protection|Could be done, better than letting it rust, but you would have to make sure there is absolutley none left before painting over it. Sandblasting would do that OK. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > > Hi Brent, > > Is it a good idea to cover lightly rusted spot inside a steel sailboat with marine grease, to protect against rusting, until major sanding and epoxy painting is done? > > Martin. > | 25485|25428|2011-03-04 19:27:13|brentswain38|Re: Tug conversion|Venezuela can charge locals whatever they want , having never signed onto WTO or free trade agreements.It's only those agreements which forbid governments from giving their citizens the benefit of their own resources, for the profits of the oil companies. Canada tried a two price sytem back in the days before free trade, one for Canadians and another , world price, for exports. It was called the National energy policy. Albertans went on the attack, now farmers there are complaining about the price of fuel, which is a direct result of their opposition to a two price structure, in the national energy policy. Sorta like banging ones head against the wall then blaming the government for the resulting headache. Cry me a river! --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > >Note that I can tank, every 1-2 years, in venezuela at 0.15$ / litre. > > Yes, that would be nice. That is about 75 cents a Canadian gallon. I think it was 1980 when I last saw that price. > > How is it that Venezuela charges less than the going rate for crude oil for a refined product ? > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: gcode.fi@... > Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 10:52:48 +0100 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Tug conversion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cruising a 70 metric ton steel 24 m long displacement boat I mentioned, > > costs about 1000$-2000 USD / year. > > Using the previously mentioned 100 hp engine. > > > > The engine is off a diesel train, an "ukko-pekkka" and is vastly > > overpowered for the boat. > > The prop spins like an blender blade at any significant throttle. > > My friend, who lifted and installed it into the boat himself, has never > > bothered to change the prop in the last 10 years, what for ... ? > > If it works well and reliably, is cheap, and you get more than enough > > speed, call it good and thats it. > > > > I expect that I would get about 150-250 litres/day at full throttle > > cruising speed consumption, at around 11-12 knots, or 90% of "hull speed". > > The probably error is 25% and will tend towards the lower end. > > Crossing the atlantic would consume about 1500 litres (upto 3000). > > Note that I can tank, every 1-2 years, in venezuela at 0.15$ / litre. > > Likewise, this is nearly my first stop after taking delivery. > > Tankage is 24.000 litres, and at 100 days steaming, 300 miles day, > > 30.000 nautical miles or non-stop around the world. > > > > I will proceed with the project by getting plans and documents, while > > working towards funding it. > > Likewise, I will try to arrange a charter (dive trip, salvage, > > documentary) and or work before buying it. > > > > > I guy I know owns a 52 foot multi-deck cabin cruiser. Costs him $3,000 in diesel to go cruising for a week. I cannot imagine what this would cost, even with a replacement engine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25486|25462|2011-03-05 05:52:45|Kim|Re: Chine doubler plates.|Many thanks for your reply, Brent! That's one less thing for me to do! :-) The chines look incredibly strong as they are, so I didn't think the doubler plates would be necessary on the twin keeler. Cheers ... Kim. ________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > The reason for chine doublers is because when a single keeler hits the beach, initially, the only two places which make contact are the chine and the bottom of the keel. If those are bullet proof, there is little chance the beach will hit anything else. > As this is not the case with twin keelers, there is little point in using chine doublers on a twin keeler. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > Brent: In your book (pages 93/94) you mention that chine doubler plates are unnecessary on a twin keeler as the keels protect the chines enough. But do you recommend to put them in anyway on a twin keeler (for general overall strength reasons)? > > > > If so, what thickness should they be for the 26-footer? Your book says to use 1/4" (6mm) plate for the 36-footer. Would 3mm or 4mm plate be enough for the 26-footer? Also, I assume the doubler plates could be made from shorter pieces (rather than long pieces the full length of the chine)? > > > > Thanks Brent! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > ______________________________________________________________ | 25487|25434|2011-03-05 07:57:59|normanbywaite|Re: Lining the cabin ceiling|Bewdy! 3 ply it is then. No foam, until i find i HAVE to have it. I'll just live with what i've got. The temptation is to undertake more renovations than are really needed. So far i've been able to resist temptation, and just repair some bits back to the way they were, in workable condition. Cruising it is, fixing and tinkering as i go. No major work apart from making her comfortable, workable, and seaworthy. No ambitious daydreaming - i've been doing that for too long anyway. Cheers, Matt| 25488|25434|2011-03-05 09:44:02|martin demers|Re: Lining the cabin ceiling|I had the same temptations on my boat; changing bulkheads place ,stretching the v-berth, widen the floor... if I do that, I will never go sailing. So I'll use my boat as it is and maybe later when in a warmer climate and have more time ahead of me I'll make some modifications, but not now! Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: matt@... Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 12:57:57 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Lining the cabin ceiling Bewdy! 3 ply it is then. No foam, until i find i HAVE to have it. I'll just live with what i've got. The temptation is to undertake more renovations than are really needed. So far i've been able to resist temptation, and just repair some bits back to the way they were, in workable condition. Cruising it is, fixing and tinkering as i go. No major work apart from making her comfortable, workable, and seaworthy. No ambitious daydreaming - i've been doing that for too long anyway. Cheers, Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25489|25489|2011-03-06 17:59:10|bryanwright41|Change in my boat construction plans|I've been following this group for about 5 years now. About 4 years ago, I started work on a project with Gerd Mueller. He designed a 36' origami hull for me, and I have been making slow progress on it since. Along the way I've purchased many of the big ticket items including a new 65 hp engine, a heavy aluminum mast, boom, sails, winches, anchors, etc. For a number of reasons, I am not going to finish the project. Very soon I plan to start selling the parts that I've accumulated. I have not figured out what to do with the nearly finished hull. I have not decided if I am going to sell all of the accumlated parts, or if I'll save some for the next project. If any of you guys are interested, let me know. Everything is currently located in central Ohio. Bryan| 25490|25428|2011-03-06 18:28:40|Maxime Camirand|Re: Tug conversion|What's the tug's gross tonnage? How are you going to deal with the license issues? What flag are you gonna put her under? What classification society? Regards, Max| 25491|25428|2011-03-07 08:10:31|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Tug conversion|I expect to flag her in the finnish registry as a private pleasure craft. We have no size limits, afaik. A friend has had a bigger steel trawler over 10 years in commercial use with no problems. I also expect to get a commercial-endorsement RYA yachtmaster ticket (and my first mate), and should be able to get insurance for moving passengers. The gross tonnage is 200 tons. I would be grateful for ideas re: classification/documentation. What's the tug's gross tonnage? How are you going to deal with the > > license issues? What flag are you gonna put her under? What > classification society? > > Regards, > Max > > __. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25492|25428|2011-03-07 08:54:36|Maxime Camirand|Re: Tug conversion|I have no idea how the Finnish flag works, only the Canadian one. You could never operate such a craft in Canada with a recreational license, though I've -heard- it's possible with other flags up to 500 gross tons. Make sure you pick a flag that offers delegation of its inspections to the classification society. That way, you can bundle all of your inspections into fewer visits. With an international classification society (Det Norske Veritas, Lloyd's, RINA, etc), you shouldn't have any problems getting inspections in any major port in the world. I expect that with whatever flag you pick, at 200 tons you will likely be playing with the big boys in terms of equipment, port fees, agents, pilotage, inspections and maintenance. I can't speak with certainty about other flags, but if you cruise internationally, you might be required to have a number of VHF radios, MF-HF, and DSC for both. They will have to be periodically inspected and you will either need a radio officer aboard (exceedingly rare, these days) or a GMDSS license and a maintenance contract with a shore-based radio technician company. Radio backup batteries will have to have a certain rated capacity and be kept in an approved battery room, with a log kept of their weekly maintenance. This is just one example. Again depending on your flag, you might dodge some bullets on account of your low tonnage. If I sound like I am trying to discourage you, it's because I am. Unless you are fabulously rich, this purchase makes no sense. Some of my friends ship out on large tugs and by all reports, the accommodations are universally terrible and hive-like in their arrangement. If you have enough money to buy and operate this tug, you would be far better off getting a more economically-operated yacht, like George Buehler's "Ellemaid" design, for example. It will be arranged for your comfort and designed to motor efficiently and with a comfortable motion at sea, absolutely none of which is a feature of tugs. Regards, Maxime| 25493|25493|2011-03-07 17:06:12|JuanCarlos|Tom thumb 24|How can I convert a TT 24 multi chine hull plans to origami? Do you know anybody who has tried that conversion? Thanks in advance JC| 25494|25493|2011-03-07 17:13:26|brentswain38|Re: Tom thumb 24|You could simply make a very accurate model of the boat, then take patterns off it. Given the huge difference in what any two owners will put aboard, they don't have to be all that accurate, just fair along the edges. . Or a computer whiz kid could take patterns off the hull lines. After that its simply a matter of using standard origami building methods. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "JuanCarlos" wrote: > > How can I convert a TT 24 multi chine hull plans to origami? Do you know anybody who has tried that conversion? Thanks in advance > JC > | 25495|25493|2011-03-08 01:39:00|JuanCarlos|Re: Tom thumb 24|Thanks! That info gonna help...Regards --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > You could simply make a very accurate model of the boat, then take patterns off it. Given the huge difference in what any two owners will put aboard, they don't have to be all that accurate, just fair along the edges. . > Or a computer whiz kid could take patterns off the hull lines. After that its simply a matter of using standard origami building methods. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "JuanCarlos" wrote: > > > > How can I convert a TT 24 multi chine hull plans to origami? Do you know anybody who has tried that conversion? Thanks in advance > > JC > > > | 25496|25493|2011-03-08 06:11:03|Kim|Re: Tom thumb 24|Hi Juan ... Just out of curiosity: why not build a Swain 26 instead (which is already an origami design)? I assume you have carefully compared the specs of the two designs, and I would be interested in why you find the TT 24 more appealing. Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "JuanCarlos" wrote: > > How can I convert a TT 24 multi chine hull plans to origami? Do you know anybody who has tried that conversion? Thanks in advance > JC | 25497|25493|2011-03-08 09:49:17|JuanCarlos|Re: Tom thumb 24|Thanks for the concern Kim, acctually the Swain 26 is one of my "top listed" choices but to be honest I'm just in the "getting all info as possible" stage, then I would start to compare boats. As you can figure I'm looking for a small but strong little boat. I would like something like this http://yachthub.com/list/yachts-for-sale/used/sail-monohulls/tom-thumb/61096 Best regards JC --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Juan ... > > Just out of curiosity: why not build a Swain 26 instead (which is already an origami design)? I assume you have carefully compared the specs of the two designs, and I would be interested in why you find the TT 24 more appealing. > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "JuanCarlos" wrote: > > > > How can I convert a TT 24 multi chine hull plans to origami? Do you know anybody who has tried that conversion? Thanks in advance > > JC > | 25498|25493|2011-03-08 12:21:07|rhko47|Re: Tom thumb 24|Please consider the BS 26 - it is longer (so faster), lighter, requires less ballast (so cheaper to build), is already designed for origami construction, and the plans are cheaper (but possibly less complete). The TT24 is wider, though (enough to make it trailerable only with a permit, while the BS 26 would require none). --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "JuanCarlos" wrote: > > How can I convert a TT 24 multi chine hull plans to origami? Do you know anybody who has tried that conversion? Thanks in advance > JC > | 25499|25493|2011-03-08 14:25:25|Paul Wilson|Re: Tom thumb 24|I knew a guy in Canada who built a Tom Thumb and sailed it to New Zealand and back over a couple of years. When he first launched it, he didn't like it's performance at all. He cut the skinny full length keel off and put a long larger volume fin keel on it with a proper airfoil section. If I remember right, I also believe he put a skeg on with a separate rudder. The higher volume keel allowed him to put tanks in it and located the ballast lower. She ended up floating slightly higher, was more stable with the lower ballast, had more room due to the tankage in the keel and was faster and better balanced. He contacted the designer (Graham Shannon?) to tell him what he had done, but he wasn't interested. In my opinion, if you really want to build, I would go for the BS 26 footer. If you don't need to trailer it, go longer. The cost won't be that much more to go for 30 feet. Personally, I am not a fan of the short and fat designs. They have lots of room but they are a large and heavy displacement boats for their size....you might as well go longer for the same weight (and material cost) and have something that will sail. Cheers, Paul On 3/9/2011 6:20 AM, rhko47 wrote: > > Please consider the BS 26 - it is longer (so faster), lighter, > requires less ballast (so cheaper to build), is already designed for > origami construction, and the plans are cheaper (but possibly less > complete). The TT24 is wider, though (enough to make it trailerable > only with a permit, while the BS 26 would require none). > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "JuanCarlos" > wrote: > > > > How can I convert a TT 24 multi chine hull plans to origami? Do you > know anybody who has tried that conversion? Thanks in advance > > JC > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1497/3489 - Release Date: 03/07/11 > | 25500|25493|2011-03-08 15:30:51|brentswain38|Re: Tom thumb 24|If you can find a finished one in a yard , you can take full sized patterns off it using door skins and a glue gun. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "JuanCarlos" wrote: > > Thanks! That info gonna help...Regards > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > You could simply make a very accurate model of the boat, then take patterns off it. Given the huge difference in what any two owners will put aboard, they don't have to be all that accurate, just fair along the edges. . > > Or a computer whiz kid could take patterns off the hull lines. After that its simply a matter of using standard origami building methods. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "JuanCarlos" wrote: > > > > > > How can I convert a TT 24 multi chine hull plans to origami? Do you know anybody who has tried that conversion? Thanks in advance > > > JC > > > > > > | 25501|25493|2011-03-08 15:49:41|Matt Malone|Re: Tom thumb 24|Brent, I am sure you explain this in your book, but, door skins ? Are you talking about really thin steel like is used to make steel doors ? And how would you use them exactly ? And would the product be an origami pattern ? I have some ideas, but why spoil the fun of hearing the Brent way right off. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 20:30:40 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Tom thumb 24 If you can find a finished one in a yard , you can take full sized patterns off it using door skins and a glue gun. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "JuanCarlos" wrote: > > Thanks! That info gonna help...Regards > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > You could simply make a very accurate model of the boat, then take patterns off it. Given the huge difference in what any two owners will put aboard, they don't have to be all that accurate, just fair along the edges. . > > Or a computer whiz kid could take patterns off the hull lines. After that its simply a matter of using standard origami building methods. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "JuanCarlos" wrote: > > > > > > How can I convert a TT 24 multi chine hull plans to origami? Do you know anybody who has tried that conversion? Thanks in advance > > > JC > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25502|25493|2011-03-08 15:51:45|j fisher|Re: Tom thumb 24|Door skins are thin plywood sold at lumber/home repair places. Cheap quality, but low cost. I think Brent is saying lay them over the boat, cut them to the sized and you have a wood pattern to make your own. On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > Brent, I am sure you explain this in your book, but, door skins ? Are you > talking about really thin steel like is used to make steel doors ? And how > would you use them exactly ? And would the product be an origami pattern ? > > I have some ideas, but why spoil the fun of hearing the Brent way right > off. > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 20:30:40 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Tom thumb 24 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can find a finished one in a yard , you can take full sized > patterns off it using door skins and a glue gun. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "JuanCarlos" wrote: > > > > > > Thanks! That info gonna help...Regards > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" > wrote: > > > > > > > > You could simply make a very accurate model of the boat, then take > patterns off it. Given the huge difference in what any two owners will put > aboard, they don't have to be all that accurate, just fair along the edges. > . > > > > Or a computer whiz kid could take patterns off the hull lines. After > that its simply a matter of using standard origami building methods. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "JuanCarlos" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > How can I convert a TT 24 multi chine hull plans to origami? Do you > know anybody who has tried that conversion? Thanks in advance > > > > > JC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 25503|25493|2011-03-08 18:30:13|Paul Wilson|Re: Tom thumb 24|Any cheap and thin plywood.....I do this for any irregular shape. I cut it in 2 inch strips and then glue it up in a latticework to make a pattern with a hot-melt glue gun. It is much, much easier and quicker than measuring and cutting or screwing around with cardboard. Small strips are easy to handle but rigid and cut and glue in place. Once all glued into a "web" you peel the whole latticework off and you have a full pattern, as rigid as if it was a solid piece. Paul > > Door skins are thin plywood sold at lumber/home repair places. Cheap > quality, but low cost. I think Brent is saying lay them over the boat, cut > them to the sized and you have a wood pattern to make your own. > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Matt Malone > wrote: > > > > > > > Brent, I am sure you explain this in your book, but, door skins ? > Are you > > talking about really thin steel like is used to make steel doors ? > And how > > would you use them exactly ? And would the product be an origami > pattern ? > > > > I have some ideas, but why spoil the fun of hearing the Brent way right > > off. > > > > Matt > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@... > > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 20:30:40 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Tom thumb 24 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can find a finished one in a yard , you can take full sized > > patterns off it using door skins and a glue gun. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "JuanCarlos" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! That info gonna help...Regards > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "brentswain38" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You could simply make a very accurate model of the boat, then take > > patterns off it. Given the huge difference in what any two owners > will put > > aboard, they don't have to be all that accurate, just fair along the > edges. > > . > > > > > > Or a computer whiz kid could take patterns off the hull lines. After > > that its simply a matter of using standard origami building methods. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , "JuanCarlos" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can I convert a TT 24 multi chine hull plans to origami? > Do you > > know anybody who has tried that conversion? Thanks in advance > > > > > > > JC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1497/3491 - Release Date: 03/08/11 > | 25504|25493|2011-03-09 12:02:51|mkriley48|Re: Tom thumb 24|one point about the tom thumb 24 is that there is no sitting headroom under the decks, so your effective living area is greatly reduced to the amount under the cabin. Having lived in a boat like this it is very important to me. mike| 25505|25493|2011-03-09 16:16:57|brentswain38|Re: Tom thumb 24|No 1/8th inch mahogany plywood, cheap and common in building supplies --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Brent, I am sure you explain this in your book, but, door skins ? Are you talking about really thin steel like is used to make steel doors ? And how would you use them exactly ? And would the product be an origami pattern ? > > I have some ideas, but why spoil the fun of hearing the Brent way right off. > > Matt > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 20:30:40 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Tom thumb 24 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can find a finished one in a yard , you can take full sized patterns off it using door skins and a glue gun. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "JuanCarlos" wrote: > > > > > > Thanks! That info gonna help...Regards > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > > > You could simply make a very accurate model of the boat, then take patterns off it. Given the huge difference in what any two owners will put aboard, they don't have to be all that accurate, just fair along the edges. . > > > > Or a computer whiz kid could take patterns off the hull lines. After that its simply a matter of using standard origami building methods. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "JuanCarlos" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > How can I convert a TT 24 multi chine hull plans to origami? Do you know anybody who has tried that conversion? Thanks in advance > > > > > JC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25506|25506|2011-03-09 21:16:21|Kim|Reverse-polarity welding.|Hello all ... On my DC inverter welder, the cable attachment points are clearly marked on the box: the stinger is supposed to attach to the negative terminal, and the earth attaches to the positive terminal. I believe this is known as "straight polarity". However, it has been suggested to me that if welding thin plate (my whole boat is only 3mm plate), and particularly for vertical-up and overhead work, I should be using "reverse polarity": stinger to the positive terminal, and the earth to the negative terminal. I've been told that "straight polarity" causes 70% of the welding heat to be in the metal and only 30% of the heat stays in the welding rod, and vice-versa for "reverse polarity". Consequently, if I use "reverse polarity" the base metal will be cooler, and I should have fewer "blow-through"/"burn-through" problems, and, for overhead welding, the weld deposit will cool faster and be less inclined to collapse, etc. Does anyone know if this is true? In particular, does the level of weld penetration change if the polarity is switched? Do welding procedures (travel speed, etc) also change if the polarity is changed? I guess the option to change polarity would not be available on a AC buzz-box; but as I'm able to do so on my DC welder I wonder if I should? Certainly the 6013 all-position welding rods I'm using are marked DC +-, so I assume they don't care about the polarity. I'm still a very inexperienced welder, so any comments on this concept would be greatly appreciated! Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________| 25507|25506|2011-03-10 03:55:04|BrdbMc@aol.com|Re: Reverse-polarity welding.|Hi Kim, Working as a millwright most welding jobs were done by certificated welders using DC welders.On occasion they would reverse the leads I am not sure why. I am retired now but do see them from time to time so I will ask them when I do. Mikeafloat -----Original Message----- From: Kim To: origamiboats Sent: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 2:16 Subject: [origamiboats] Reverse-polarity welding. ello all ... On my DC inverter welder, the cable attachment points are clearly marked on the ox: the stinger is supposed to attach to the negative terminal, and the earth ttaches to the positive terminal. I believe this is known as "straight olarity". However, it has been suggested to me that if welding thin plate (my whole boat s only 3mm plate), and particularly for vertical-up and overhead work, I should e using "reverse polarity": stinger to the positive terminal, and the earth to he negative terminal. I've been told that "straight polarity" causes 70% of the welding heat to be in he metal and only 30% of the heat stays in the welding rod, and vice-versa for reverse polarity". Consequently, if I use "reverse polarity" the base metal will be cooler, and I hould have fewer "blow-through"/"burn-through" problems, and, for overhead elding, the weld deposit will cool faster and be less inclined to collapse, tc. Does anyone know if this is true? In particular, does the level of weld enetration change if the polarity is switched? Do welding procedures (travel peed, etc) also change if the polarity is changed? I guess the option to change polarity would not be available on a AC buzz-box; ut as I'm able to do so on my DC welder I wonder if I should? Certainly the 013 all-position welding rods I'm using are marked DC +-, so I assume they on't care about the polarity. I'm still a very inexperienced welder, so any comments on this concept would be reatly appreciated! Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht _____________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------- 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]| 25508|25506|2011-03-10 04:38:12|boatwayupnorth|Re: Reverse-polarity welding.|Kim, I am an absolute rookie when it comes to welding, but from my limited experience some comments. I also have a DC inverter welder (200A). I came over the same information about reversing polarity for putting more heat in the electrode and less in the base metal and spend an afternoon trying this on 6 mm mild steel (that's what I had) with 6013 Elga rods, 2,5 mm. I tried different amperages, starting from 100A down to when the rod tended to stick instead of arcing. I could not see that the polarity made any difference. Maybe it makes a considerable difference with 3 mm base metal or when welding overhead, haven't tried that. I'm very interested to hear from your experiences doing this. Regards Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hello all ... > > On my DC inverter welder, the cable attachment points are clearly marked on the box: the stinger is supposed to attach to the negative terminal, and the earth attaches to the positive terminal. I believe this is known as "straight polarity". > > However, it has been suggested to me that if welding thin plate (my whole boat is only 3mm plate), and particularly for vertical-up and overhead work, I should be using "reverse polarity": stinger to the positive terminal, and the earth to the negative terminal. > > I've been told that "straight polarity" causes 70% of the welding heat to be in the metal and only 30% of the heat stays in the welding rod, and vice-versa for "reverse polarity". > > Consequently, if I use "reverse polarity" the base metal will be cooler, and I should have fewer "blow-through"/"burn-through" problems, and, for overhead welding, the weld deposit will cool faster and be less inclined to collapse, etc. > > Does anyone know if this is true? In particular, does the level of weld penetration change if the polarity is switched? Do welding procedures (travel speed, etc) also change if the polarity is changed? > > I guess the option to change polarity would not be available on a AC buzz-box; but as I'm able to do so on my DC welder I wonder if I should? Certainly the 6013 all-position welding rods I'm using are marked DC +-, so I assume they don't care about the polarity. > > I'm still a very inexperienced welder, so any comments on this concept would be greatly appreciated! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > | 25509|869|2011-03-10 10:05:25|martin|welding|There is some information at this site that may explain it better than I could ever hope to. http://www.tpub.com/content/construction/14250/css/14250_179.htm My welder is a lincoln AC/DC with a reverse pole setting. All the electrodes have a desired setting that they work their best at. An example would be I find 7018 1/8in. low hydrogen rod works very well in most postions with a high amp setting in reverse pol. Martin..| 25510|25506|2011-03-10 21:56:26|brentswain38|Re: Reverse-polarity welding.|For the cabin sides I find it far easier to weld the outside welds first, then when you do the inside ones, there is far less problem with burning thru. I haven't noticed a huge difference between straight and reverse polarity. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "boatwayupnorth" wrote: > > > > Kim, > I am an absolute rookie when it comes to welding, but from my limited experience some comments. > I also have a DC inverter welder (200A). I came over the same information about reversing polarity for putting more heat in the electrode and less in the base metal and spend an afternoon trying this on 6 mm mild steel (that's what I had) with 6013 Elga rods, 2,5 mm. I tried different amperages, starting from 100A down to when the rod tended to stick instead of arcing. I could not see that the polarity made any difference. Maybe it makes a considerable difference with 3 mm base metal or when welding overhead, haven't tried that. > I'm very interested to hear from your experiences doing this. > Regards > Walter > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > Hello all ... > > > > On my DC inverter welder, the cable attachment points are clearly marked on the box: the stinger is supposed to attach to the negative terminal, and the earth attaches to the positive terminal. I believe this is known as "straight polarity". > > > > However, it has been suggested to me that if welding thin plate (my whole boat is only 3mm plate), and particularly for vertical-up and overhead work, I should be using "reverse polarity": stinger to the positive terminal, and the earth to the negative terminal. > > > > I've been told that "straight polarity" causes 70% of the welding heat to be in the metal and only 30% of the heat stays in the welding rod, and vice-versa for "reverse polarity". > > > > Consequently, if I use "reverse polarity" the base metal will be cooler, and I should have fewer "blow-through"/"burn-through" problems, and, for overhead welding, the weld deposit will cool faster and be less inclined to collapse, etc. > > > > Does anyone know if this is true? In particular, does the level of weld penetration change if the polarity is switched? Do welding procedures (travel speed, etc) also change if the polarity is changed? > > > > I guess the option to change polarity would not be available on a AC buzz-box; but as I'm able to do so on my DC welder I wonder if I should? Certainly the 6013 all-position welding rods I'm using are marked DC +-, so I assume they don't care about the polarity. > > > > I'm still a very inexperienced welder, so any comments on this concept would be greatly appreciated! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > | 25511|25506|2011-03-13 07:15:37|Kim|Re: Reverse-polarity welding.|Brent, Walter, Mikeafloat & Martin: Many thanks for all your responses! After reading more on the subject, talking to friends who are welders, and reading you replies, it seems that there are definitely theoretical differences between "straight polarity" and "reverse polarity". However, it seems that from a purely practical point of view, the average stick-welder isn't likely to notice much difference. As I've got a DC welder, I think I'll use "reverse polarity" for overhead work; but otherwise leave it on its default "straight polarity" setting (which has been just fine for everything so far). Thanks again! Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > Hello all ... > > On my DC inverter welder, the cable attachment points are clearly marked on the box: the stinger is supposed to attach to the negative terminal, and the earth attaches to the positive terminal. I believe this is known as "straight polarity". > > However, it has been suggested to me that if welding thin plate (my whole boat is only 3mm plate), and particularly for vertical-up and overhead work, I should be using "reverse polarity": stinger to the positive terminal, and the earth to the negative terminal. > > I've been told that "straight polarity" causes 70% of the welding heat to be in the metal and only 30% of the heat stays in the welding rod, and vice-versa for "reverse polarity". > > Consequently, if I use "reverse polarity" the base metal will be cooler, and I should have fewer "blow-through"/"burn-through" problems, and, for overhead welding, the weld deposit will cool faster and be less inclined to collapse, etc. > > Does anyone know if this is true? In particular, does the level of weld penetration change if the polarity is switched? Do welding procedures (travel speed, etc) also change if the polarity is changed? > > I guess the option to change polarity would not be available on a AC buzz-box; but as I'm able to do so on my DC welder I wonder if I should? Certainly the 6013 all-position welding rods I'm using are marked DC +-, so I assume they don't care about the polarity. > > I'm still a very inexperienced welder, so any comments on this concept would be greatly appreciated! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ | 25512|25512|2011-03-14 16:36:03|brentswain38|Ordering books and plans|When you order books or plans, could you please print the return address in a way which is readable. I just had a book returned, when my interpretation of the scrawled return address proved wrong. It was almost unreadable. Thanks Brent| 25513|25513|2011-03-14 18:32:50|martin|Mine field in the Pacific|Brent; How long do you figure it will be before west coast boats will be colliding with the tons of items from the Disaster in Japan? I'm thinking there will be some major open ocean strikes with all manor of things. A good steel hull will definitely be an assest for those that venture out into the blue pacific. Martin (Prairie Maid)| 25514|25513|2011-03-15 21:49:22|brentswain38|Re: Mine field in the Pacific|Most will blow up into the Gulf of Alaska, where the Aleutian low will blow it onto the Aleutians. There is still no lack of stuff to crash into, including the 10,000 containers which go missing every year. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "martin" wrote: > > Brent; How long do you figure it will be before west coast boats will be colliding with the tons of items from the Disaster in Japan? I'm thinking there will be some major open ocean strikes with all manor of things. A good steel hull will definitely be an assest for those that venture out into the blue pacific. Martin (Prairie Maid) > | 25515|25513|2011-03-15 22:00:27|Aaron Williams|Re: Mine field in the Pacific|Just think of the beach combing possibilities!   ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, March 15, 2011 5:49:21 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Mine field in the Pacific   Most will blow up into the Gulf of Alaska, where the Aleutian low will blow it onto the Aleutians. There is still no lack of stuff to crash into, including the 10,000 containers which go missing every year. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "martin" wrote: > > Brent; How long do you figure it will be before west coast boats will be >colliding with the tons of items from the Disaster in Japan? I'm thinking there >will be some major open ocean strikes with all manor of things. A good steel >hull will definitely be an assest for those that venture out into the blue >pacific. Martin (Prairie Maid) > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25516|25516|2011-03-16 20:11:39|brentswain38|Grapnel|I once welded up a stainless grapnel out of SS rod. What a useful tool. When I approach a rock pile breakwater which I want a stern line on, I throw the grapnel to get the boat stopped, then make a more permanent tie up later. Lose an anchor and the grapnel will find it , usually quite quick. To pick up a mooring , hooking the grapnel thru it is a lot easier and quicker, with far less chance of screwup, than most other alternatives. Keep it tight until the boat is well stopped and you can loop a line thru it.| 25518|25516|2011-03-17 01:42:14|john dean|Re: Grapnel|Would 1/2 inch bar do. With about 8 inch prongs and a 12 inch shank be about right. Would aluminum do? --- On Wed, 3/16/11, brentswain38 wrote: > From: brentswain38 > Subject: [origamiboats] Grapnel > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 8:11 PM > I once welded up a stainless grapnel > out of SS rod. What a useful tool. When I approach a rock > pile breakwater which I want  a stern line on, I throw > the  grapnel to get the boat stopped, then make a more > permanent tie up later. Lose an anchor and the grapnel will > find it , usually quite quick. To pick up a mooring , > hooking the grapnel thru it is a lot easier and quicker, > with far less chance of screwup, than most other > alternatives. Keep it tight until the boat is well stopped > and you can loop a line thru it. > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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 > > > | 25519|25519|2011-03-17 13:11:09|wild_explorer|Mast as a sail???|I was looking for some information about lift of the keel and rudder and found this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship It might be far from really practical solution but interesting as "hybrid" applications.| 25520|25516|2011-03-17 14:32:26|brentswain38|Re: Grapnel|That would work in stainless, mine is half inch SS. I plan to beef it up at the base.. Aluminium would bend too easily, and would be too light to get down to pick up an anchor rode. I was thinking of adding weight to mine, for that reason. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, john dean wrote: > > Would 1/2 inch bar do. With about 8 inch prongs and a 12 inch shank be about right. Would aluminum do? > --- On Wed, 3/16/11, brentswain38 wrote: > > > From: brentswain38 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Grapnel > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 8:11 PM > > I once welded up a stainless grapnel > > out of SS rod. What a useful tool. When I approach a rock > > pile breakwater which I want� a stern line on, I throw > > the� grapnel to get the boat stopped, then make a more > > permanent tie up later. Lose an anchor and the grapnel will > > find it , usually quite quick. To pick up a mooring , > > hooking the grapnel thru it is a lot easier and quicker, > > with far less chance of screwup, than most otherode > > alternatives. Keep it tight until the boat is well stopped > > and you can loop a line thru it. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > 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 > > > > > > > | 25521|25519|2011-03-17 14:34:28|brentswain38|Re: Mast as a sail???|Jacques Cousteau used that once on one of his ships. Doesn't look practical for a yacht. How would you reef it in a storm? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > I was looking for some information about lift of the keel and rudder and found this one > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship > > It might be far from really practical solution but interesting as "hybrid" applications. > | 25522|25519|2011-03-17 14:49:09|wild_explorer|Re: Mast as a sail???|To "reef" it you slow down RPM. More RPMs - more lift. Zero RPM's - drag only. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Jacques Cousteau used that once on one of his ships. > Doesn't look practical for a yacht. How would you reef it in a storm? > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > I was looking for some information about lift of the keel and rudder and found this one > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship > > > > It might be far from really practical solution but interesting as "hybrid" applications. > > > | 25523|25519|2011-03-17 14:54:13|Matt Malone|Re: Mast as a sail???|The problem with the Magnus effect is it is inefficient. The rotor ships were found to be less efficient than just putting the power to a propellor in the water. It cannot sail into the wind any better than a sail, that requires no power. Furthermore, all of these force coefficients are multiplied by the cross-sectional area of the cylinder perpendicular to the lift force (diameter * height) times the dynamic pressure of the wind = 1/2 rho * velocity^2. The cross-sectional area for a cylinder is small. For a foil, like a sail, the area used for computations is sail area. Any enlarged mast one is hoping to generate measurable thrust from is a huge liability in storm conditions --- remember, all forces due to air are proportional to velocity squared. Something that is worth doing at all in 10 knots of wind is going to create 36 times more force in 60 knots of wind... Unlikely that is going to be welcomed. A sail at least can be reefed or removed entirely. Lastly, if someone is going to go to all the trouble to have a rotating thing and mechanical linkages, then (sorry to bring up this point of almost certain sailing controversy) an egg-beater type vertical axis windmill, like in the movie Waterworld at least allows one to "sail" directly into the wind, which is something sails cannot do at all, let alone better. Whether it is a good idea at all, or was a bad movie, is entirely beside the point. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:11:09 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Mast as a sail??? I was looking for some information about lift of the keel and rudder and found this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship It might be far from really practical solution but interesting as "hybrid" applications. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25524|25519|2011-03-17 18:22:21|wild_explorer|Re: Mast as a sail???|I think that nobody come up with something better than sails so far. On any claimed advantage, there are more disadvantages ;) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > The problem with the Magnus effect is it is inefficient. The rotor ships were found to be less efficient than just putting the power to a propellor in the water. It cannot sail into the wind any better than a sail, that requires no power. > | 25525|25519|2011-03-17 19:44:13|Ben Okopnik|Re: Mast as a sail???|On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:22:21PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > I think that nobody come up with something better than sails so far. > On any claimed advantage, there are more disadvantages ;) I had a guy get into an argument with me - well, with himself, really; I refused to argue, but he just kept on going - about how "scientists" (ever notice how these people don't call them "magicians" anymore?) had just discovered this NEW principle, where you could turn water into oxygen and hydrogen, so now you could power a boat with those - really! - and how he was going to *prove* that this new principle worked by taking his 23' Sea-Ray (or whatever his little powerboat was) from California to New Zealand. He had "calculated" that he could do it, you see. (I did ask him how he calculated it, actually. He told me that he was going to use his engine to start breaking water apart [1], and then - well, he'd be afloat in a sea of fuel! At that point, I just shut up and had another beer. "Your Honor, the defense rests.") [1] I suspect that he was thinking in terms of tiny little horses. Y'know, the ones that live inside engines. Where did you _think_ the term "horsepower" came from? Duh! 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| 25526|25519|2011-03-17 22:24:34|Tom|Re: Mast as a sail???|Ben ... maybe he's good friends with Harry Potter ??? ... Then all he would need is a good wand (I've heard that the West Marine model tends to wonder about) and the right incantation .... (But ..... I've always wondered why Harry wore glasses ....It seems to me that a good wizard could have any kind of vision that they wanted) Tinboat ________________________________ From: Ben Okopnik To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, March 17, 2011 4:42:45 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Mast as a sail??? On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:22:21PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > I think that nobody come up with something better than sails so far. > On any claimed advantage, there are more disadvantages ;) I had a guy get into an argument with me - well, with himself, really; I refused to argue, but he just kept on going - about how "scientists" (ever notice how these people don't call them "magicians" anymore?) had just discovered this NEW principle, where you could turn water into oxygen and hydrogen, so now you could power a boat with those - really! - and how he was going to *prove* that this new principle worked by taking his 23' Sea-Ray (or whatever his little powerboat was) from California to New Zealand. He had "calculated" that he could do it, you see. (I did ask him how he calculated it, actually. He told me that he was going to use his engine to start breaking water apart [1], and then - well, he'd be afloat in a sea of fuel! At that point, I just shut up and had another beer. "Your Honor, the defense rests.") [1] I suspect that he was thinking in terms of tiny little horses. Y'know, the ones that live inside engines. Where did you _think_ the term "horsepower" came from? Duh! 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] | 25527|25519|2011-03-17 23:01:23|Ben Okopnik|Re: Mast as a sail???|On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 07:24:33PM -0700, Tom wrote: > > (But ..... I've always wondered why Harry wore glasses ....It seems to me that a > good wizard could have any kind of vision that they wanted) There's this fairly high-order technique that we programmers use called "closures", where you don't just make a program give back a result - you make it build another program that gives you a result (like building an automated boat factory instead of a boat; sure, it takes more effort, but from that point on, all you do to get another boat is decide on a color, size, etc., and push a button. Crude example, but kinda like that.) Multi-level thinking, in other words. So when somebody comes along and says to me "this guy I know is a no-fail hypnotist - for (some large amount of money), he guarantees that you'll (make a million dollars, or be very successful with women, or be happy forever, or some other thing like that). The only people who fail are the ones who get lazy and don't follow his instructions!", my nearly-automatic response is "Then why isn't his _first_ hypnotic instruction 'YOU WILL NEVER GET LAZY OR FAIL TO FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTIONS'???" (This just happened a little while ago. I really don't know *why* this kind of people pick me to try their stuff on so often... I just can't help but harsh their buzz.) 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| 25528|25519|2011-03-18 04:26:21|P-O Gustafsson|Re: Mast as a sail???|On 2011-03-18 00:42, Ben Okopnik wrote: > just discovered this NEW principle, where you could turn water into > oxygen and hydrogen, He might have been thinking of what's called HHO or hydroxy. Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen with electricity. Nothing new about that. The old combustion engine is a fairly inefficient machine with ~30-40% efficiency only. When adding a very small amount of hydrogen to the intake air the burning speed of carbohydrates will increase and you get a better fuel efficiency. That efficiency can be much greater than the extra load on alternator. But it varies from engine to engine, and how good you are at adjusting it. Most are doing it on modern cars with electronic injection and ignition that are difficult to "fool" to the changes needed with a faster fuel burn. Around 20% increase in mpg seem to be average. That's OK in a car that's open downwards with a good air flow under the hood. But I'm not so sure I would want to produce rocket fuel inside a boat.... Plenty of info out there. Search for HHO and you will get a lot of Youtube videos. Unfortunately it's a mix of new age hocus pocus and facts. A few guys have claimed they ran a car on pure water only. Stan Meyer and Daniel Dingle are probably the best known. -- P-O| 25529|25519|2011-03-18 06:37:07|Marc|Re: Mast as a sail???|Stop the rotation, or just reduce the speed. The rotor ceases to act as an airfoil. Voilà. Marc --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > Doesn't look practical for a yacht. How would you reef it in a storm? | 25530|25519|2011-03-18 06:40:09|Marc|Re: Mast as a sail???|You're right: the movie was dumb (though fun), but using a Darrieus rotor to power a boat makes good sense. For some reason, though, all the rotorships I've seen had axial-flow turbines. Marc --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > Lastly, if someone is going to go to all the trouble to have a rotating thing and mechanical linkages, then (sorry to bring up this point of almost certain sailing controversy) an egg-beater type vertical axis windmill, like in the movie Waterworld at least allows one to "sail" directly into the wind, which is something sails cannot do at all, let alone better. Whether it is a good idea at all, or was a bad movie, is entirely beside the point. | 25531|25519|2011-03-18 08:40:38|Matt Malone|Re: Was Rotor ships, now Assorted "New" Cool Ideas|OK, before anyone jumps on P-O's post as next-of-kin to a car that runs on water, and a perpetual motion machine, he was only claiming that a small amount of hydrogen disproportionately boosts engine efficiency, so one gets more useful power out of the gasoline. Generation of electricity is typically not that good in an alternator -- about 40%-45% efficient because of the shape of the typical claw-type rotor core. Then electrolysis is generally not that efficient either 50%-70%... Total efficiency of producing hydrogen from an engine, just considering these two loses is 20%-32%. The catalytic effect must be pretty strong, at low concentrations in the fuel stream, or this is certainly doomed to cost more energy than it gains. So that little whiff of hydrogen must be leveraging a lot of efficiency out of the gasoline. Even if it does gain more than it loses, there is the complexity and HYDROGEN (a.k.a BOOM, a.k.a. nuclear power plant roof remover). I have to say I am skeptical of how much benefit is actually seen. If it were that good, it would have been used in transport trucks for decades -- there is a business where dollars per ton-mile, and no other consideration, drives it. Transport trucks do use turbochargers because they are economical in the long run, even after including initial costs and maintenance costs. Ask Cummins and Detroit about Hydroxyl... There are a lot of these ideas out there. Where it used to be that ineffective and bogus snake oil was sold to farmers, and ineffective and bogus inventions were used to separate investors from their money. The internet has allowed a lot of marginal ideas, poor science, and bad science and anti-science to reach the mainstream... Do you see the ads on those websites ? The websites are not actually selling the oil (unless you really want to buy some) -- instead they are selling entertainment and making money from advertising. A little calculation and reasoning can put an upper limit on the real world usefulness of most ideas. Like, if the were invented in the 1920s, when was the last time you saw a rotor ship, in person ? If it was not the engineers who killed it, it was the accountants. Matt > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: pogust@... > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:26:05 +0100 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Mast as a sail??? > > On 2011-03-18 00:42, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > just discovered this NEW principle, where you could turn water into > > oxygen and hydrogen, > > He might have been thinking of what's called HHO or hydroxy. Splitting > water into hydrogen and oxygen with electricity. Nothing new about > that. The old combustion engine is a fairly inefficient machine with > ~30-40% efficiency only. When adding a very small amount of hydrogen > to the intake air the burning speed of carbohydrates will increase and > you get a better fuel efficiency. That efficiency can be much greater > than the extra load on alternator. But it varies from engine to > engine, and how good you are at adjusting it. Most are doing it on > modern cars with electronic injection and ignition that are difficult > to "fool" to the changes needed with a faster fuel burn. Around 20% > increase in mpg seem to be average. > > That's OK in a car that's open downwards with a good air flow under > the hood. But I'm not so sure I would want to produce rocket fuel > inside a boat.... > > Plenty of info out there. Search for HHO and you will get a lot of > Youtube videos. Unfortunately it's a mix of new age hocus pocus and > facts. A few guys have claimed they ran a car on pure water only. Stan > Meyer and Daniel Dingle are probably the best known. > > -- > P-O > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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]| 25532|25519|2011-03-18 09:03:37|Ben Okopnik|Re: Mast as a sail???|On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:26:05AM +0100, P-O Gustafsson wrote: > On 2011-03-18 00:42, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > just discovered this NEW principle, where you could turn water into > > oxygen and hydrogen, > > He might have been thinking of what's called HHO or hydroxy. Splitting > water into hydrogen and oxygen with electricity. Oh, I'm quite aware of the whole HHO thing; in fact, I seem to recall that we had a discussion about it here some time ago. > Nothing new about > that. The old combustion engine is a fairly inefficient machine with > ~30-40% efficiency only. When adding a very small amount of hydrogen > to the intake air the burning speed of carbohydrates will increase and > you get a better fuel efficiency. That efficiency can be much greater > than the extra load on alternator. But it varies from engine to > engine, and how good you are at adjusting it. Most are doing it on > modern cars with electronic injection and ignition that are difficult > to "fool" to the changes needed with a faster fuel burn. Around 20% > increase in mpg seem to be average. I'm sorry to disappoint, but you've been taken in by the hype. Perpetual motion, no matter how pretty it's made to sound or how many "magical" stages you put it through, is bad science no matter what. Since most people don't have a very clear understanding of the above principle and won't be convinced by that simple (albeit utterly unshakeable) argument, Popular Mechanics partnered up with ABC and an EPA-certified lab and did a series of thorough tests, then published the results. There's no gain whasoever, of course. All the HHO "evidence" is anectodal; actual lab and thorough on-road testing shows nothing. http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/gas-mileage/4276846 http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/gas-mileage/4310717 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29899191/ 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| 25533|25519|2011-03-18 12:50:42|wild_explorer|Re: Mast as a sail???|I took another look at this subject. Actually, this "rotor" is more efficient at low wind. At high winds it loses efficiency and produce more drag. So, stopping cylinder in storm condition will still provide a lot of undesirable windage (drag). Just some numbers for wind 20 kn: 1. Cylinder 1x50ft (mast) 0 rpm - drag 212 N 25 rpm - lift 250 N 80 rpm - lift 809 N Useful force ~ 600 N @ 80 rpm 2. Cylinder 5x50ft 0 rpm - drag 1316 N 5 rpm - lift 1254 N 16 rpm - lift 4047 N Useful force ~ 3700 N @ 16 rpm So, this solution is not really suitable for sailboats. Plus complexity of moving parts and affect of rotor weight on stability of a sailboat. Some company makes attempt to use it on cargo ships, but if it does not perform good - it is easy to take it out from big ship without complications. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Ship_1 --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Marc" wrote: > > Stop the rotation, or just reduce the speed. The rotor ceases to act as an airfoil. Voilà. > > Marc > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > Doesn't look practical for a yacht. How would you reef it in a storm? > | 25534|25519|2011-03-18 14:19:20|roadkyl@comcast.net|Re: Mast as a sail???|There was a segment on the effect on a recent episode of "Wallace and Grommet's World of Adventure" They were talking about someone else trying to make use of the principle but did show the ship and I talk about it as well. paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "wild_explorer" To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 1:11:09 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Mast as a sail??? I was looking for some information about lift of the keel and rudder and found this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship It might be far from really practical solution but interesting as "hybrid" applications. ------------------------------------ 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] | 25535|25519|2011-03-18 15:23:38|P-O Gustafsson|Re: Assorted "New" Cool Ideas|I stumbled on this HHO business a couple months ago and have been following a list like this on the subject. Not enough work do do during winter I guess.... Like on this list there are some knowledgeable fellows there. I find it hard to believe they would put so much work into something totally bogus. Guess time will show. I'm not trying to sell someone something, just giving a short reference of what I have read in this short time. Take it for what it is, believe it or not.... > Generation of electricity is typically not that good in an alternator -- There seem to be some kind of agreement on the amount of hydrogen-oxygen gas suitable for boosting the combustion. 0,25 to 0,5 liters/minute per 1000 cc engine size. A good HHO cell draws around 10 amp per liter produced. That means a 2 liter engine will draw 10 amps x 14 volts = 140 watts = 0,2 hp. > about 40%-45% efficient because of the shape of the typical claw-type OK that's 1/2 hp draw then. > I have to say I am skeptical of how much benefit is actually seen. If it > were that good, it would have been used in transport trucks for decades Agree. So why are so many putting so much work into this? Only dreaming...? I can understand the safety aspect with a highly explosive gas mixture, that would probably cause many manufacturers to avoid it. But I don't think everybody is lying, some out there are cutting fuel costs by using it. What are they doing right, and others doing wrong? And of course there are a bunch of scammers there too taking the opportunity.... -- P-O| 25536|25519|2011-03-18 19:24:56|brentswain38|Re: Mast as a sail???|You would have to put a lot of energy into electrolysis only to get the same energy out, minus the friction. My brothers told me about some high school teachers they knew who tried to run an engine on hydrogen and oxygen. They miscalculated the cushioning effect of all the nitrogen in air. The engine blew itself into shrapnel the first firing. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:22:21PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > I think that nobody come up with something better than sails so far. > > On any claimed advantage, there are more disadvantages ;) > > I had a guy get into an argument with me - well, with himself, really; I > refused to argue, but he just kept on going - about how "scientists" > (ever notice how these people don't call them "magicians" anymore?) had > just discovered this NEW principle, where you could turn water into > oxygen and hydrogen, so now you could power a boat with those - really! > - and how he was going to *prove* that this new principle worked by > taking his 23' Sea-Ray (or whatever his little powerboat was) from > California to New Zealand. He had "calculated" that he could do it, you > see. > > (I did ask him how he calculated it, actually. He told me that he was > going to use his engine to start breaking water apart [1], and then - > well, he'd be afloat in a sea of fuel! At that point, I just shut up and > had another beer. "Your Honor, the defense rests.") > > > [1] I suspect that he was thinking in terms of tiny little horses. > Y'know, the ones that live inside engines. Where did you _think_ the > term "horsepower" came from? Duh! > > > 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 > | 25537|25519|2011-03-18 20:30:32|Ben Okopnik|Re: Mast as a sail???|On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:24:54PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > You would have to put a lot of energy into electrolysis only to get > the same energy out, minus the friction. Heh. Well, Brent, there's no doubt in my mind that _you_ understand why perpetual-motion machines can't exist; it's all right there in that one sentence. The problem is that are a lot of people who don't really get that, so the scammers get to have a field day. Add to that the desire not to look foolish (and the resulting panicked hyping of The Magical Gadget - because if a lot of people buy into it, then the mark doesn't look quite so foolish), and you've got a whole lot of noise being distributed at Internet speeds. And incredible amounts of money being siphoned out of the suckers' pockets (the HHO rig that the TV people got installed for their show cost them something like $3000 for about $10 worth of parts.) Then there's the whole "free energy" gang. Even more fun - and *much* more craziness for the same money (the HHO people have to at least understand _something_ about cars, but these people are all about "pure science")! Oh, and the "science" behind it ranges from amazingly whacky to just outright insanity. Really awesome if you've got some time to waste, and the hype is just the best. "Wiggly coils" (if I recall the name correctly) that tune into alien power sources that The Gubmint Doesn't Want You to Know About, $35,000 blocks of "molecular metal" that "tap the fundamental energy of the Universe" and _almost_ work, and *for sure* will work by next month... Just wonderful. :) > My brothers told me about some high school teachers they knew who > tried to run an engine on hydrogen and oxygen. They miscalculated the > cushioning effect of all the nitrogen in air. The engine blew itself > into shrapnel the first firing. Whoa - cool! :) Kinda like trying to run an engine on dynamite. It's theoretically possible, but... 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| 25538|25519|2011-03-18 22:17:53|wild_explorer|Re: Mast as a sail???|Ben, I hope you still remember how to make radio-receiver which works without batteries? Coil with sliding ferrite core, capacitor, rectifier, headphones? It could be assembled on plywood board with wood screws.... Very nice and simple science project for children. They usually ask "Where is the battery???". Why do I hear music or talk-show? Does it qualifies as "Tapping to a "free" energy" ??? ;)) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > to just outright insanity. Really awesome if you've got some time to > waste, and the hype is just the best. "Wiggly coils" (if I recall the > name correctly) that tune into alien power sources that The Gubmint > Doesn't Want You to Know About, $35,000 blocks of "molecular metal" that > "tap the fundamental energy of the Universe" and _almost_ work, and *for > sure* will work by next month... Just wonderful. :) > | 25539|25519|2011-03-18 23:02:52|wild_explorer|Re: Mast as a sail???|I was unable to reply on the question below over e-mail (it was returned as undeliverable). So, I post the answer in the group. >--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > To "reef" it you slow down RPM. More RPMs - more lift. Zero RPM's - >drag only. >It seems to me that the only force caused by the rotor is drag >whether it is >rotating or not. If you don't mind me asking what definition of lift >are you >applying when you determin the rotor is generating lift? > > You can use this link for more information. I assume, that this source is pretty reliable - NASA. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/cyl.html There is even computer simulation for lift created based on rpm for rotating cylinder.| 25540|25519|2011-03-19 01:03:01|Tom|Re: Mast as a sail???|Radio waves are electromagnetic energy ... It takes energy to create the radio waves ..... The battery is the electromagnetic energy sent out by the transmitter .... A crystal set converts the electromagnetic energy to sound .... Its "free energy" if the transmitter is using power that's being stolen from the power company .... Tinboat ________________________________ From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, March 18, 2011 7:17:42 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Mast as a sail??? Ben, I hope you still remember how to make radio-receiver which works without batteries? Coil with sliding ferrite core, capacitor, rectifier, headphones? It could be assembled on plywood board with wood screws.... Very nice and simple science project for children. They usually ask "Where is the battery???". Why do I hear music or talk-show? Does it qualifies as "Tapping to a "free" energy" ??? ;)) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > to just outright insanity. Really awesome if you've got some time to > waste, and the hype is just the best. "Wiggly coils" (if I recall the > name correctly) that tune into alien power sources that The Gubmint > Doesn't Want You to Know About, $35,000 blocks of "molecular metal" that > "tap the fundamental energy of the Universe" and _almost_ work, and *for > sure* will work by next month... Just wonderful. :) > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25541|25519|2011-03-19 01:37:31|Ben Okopnik|Re: Mast as a sail???|On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 02:17:42AM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > Ben, > > I hope you still remember how to make radio-receiver which works > without batteries? Sure; I think that was the very first electronics project I ever built. Used a piece of 2x4 and small nails driven through a piece of paper with a schematic on it. > Coil with sliding ferrite core, capacitor, rectifier, headphones? You people with your fancy circuits. :) In *my* day, we "cooked" our own radio crystals (iron sulfide, if I recall) and used a wire whisker to tap them. _And_ we liked it that way! (I think I built the version you're thinking of about a month after the first one.) > They usually ask "Where is the battery???". Why do I hear music or talk-show? Believe it or not, I actually thought of tapping the radio waves for power when I was 14 or so and playing around with this stuff. I figured that hooking up 1000 germanium diodes (yes, I was getting quite fancy and modern by then) would give me about an amp and a half at 5v - plenty for experimentation, and I'd never have to buy batteries again! Problem was, I couldn't afford to buy the diodes - even at a surplus store. My father considered my passion for electronics "a stupid childish game" that I'd "grow out of", so I had to find a way to pay for everything myself. Less than three years later, I was making more money than he was and living on my own. I don't think he ever forgave me. > Does it qualifies as "Tapping to a "free" energy" ??? ;)) If you're going to do that, you'd be better off building a 60Hz tank circuit and tapping into the Mysterious Alien Power Source from the ConEd (or whatever power company you have in your area) universe. Just don't let'em catch you. :) 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| 25542|25519|2011-03-19 03:28:10|wild_explorer|Re: Mast as a sail???|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Tom wrote: > Its "free energy" if the transmitter is using power that's being stolen from the > power company .... > > Not necessary. You forgot one of the biggest transmitters nearby - The Sun. Well, it is different frequency band, but still radio-waves. Nobody (humans) claimed to own this source so far ;))) P.S. Do not take it seriously.... We are lucky nobody claimed to own the wind as well yet so far.| 25543|25519|2011-03-19 06:51:46|Denis Buggy|Re: Mast as a sail???|dear Tom I have spent many hours looking at what you have stated below , and I have sifted through many of the dubious claims made on the internet -- my intrest was then awakened and I followed this by buying used copies of everything I could get on the undisputed founder of free energy movement Nicola Tesla and I also bought all I could find on the free energy movement good and fraudulent . I have found much of it heavy going but I kept going and I then decided I would study electricity as formally as my time would allow -- I wound up studying physics also and much of the material is beyond me as my maths is the old style and I have to be content with a rough understanding of what is going on from about 9 sources at the same time as some books are written for people like me and some are post grad level . many highly educated scientists will admit that they cannot define electricity properly and I am inspired by the fact that around the world people have found a way to download the immense energy that is freely available to us -- this energy is so plentiful that it is collected by accident on the American national grid of wires and causes chaos as the circuit breakers at local sub stations are set to break when a overload of power is available --- it also is strong enough to cancel TV and mobile phone networks which it does frequently . the crystal in the set is referred to as a semiconductor it downloads energy ------if you stay with this part of the magic recipe I believe a great future awaits --- free of want-- providing shelter heat and power and above all light from a source no corporation can steal or war extinguish --- that is now my official hobby like many thousands of others around the world --- one of us will make it -- most of the pioneers got killed --sidelined -- there is one documentary which states "they have stopped killing us since the 1980s "" and when you pursue this claim you are left in no doubt that the study and research of free energy is not a healthy pastime . and the history of the us patent office in declaring work submitted as now classified or un workable in their view and therefore not deserving of a patent protection has created an extremely hostile environment for research . you should look at a documentary about the scientists Dr Fleischmann and Dr Pons who were ridiculed when they announced cold fusion in a glass of water which they displayed on a desk in front of them . their careers as world famous and highly regarded scientists was destroyed --- why -- you people with an intrest in the sea will love this -- they showed that if their research was pursued THERE WAS SUFFICIENT ENERGY IN THE HALF FULL PINT GLASS OF WATER TO BOIL THE PLANETS OCEANS . if you watch the film you will see that in the years which followed their work was examined by most of the European universities and also by the atomic commission of India and found to be valid . Toyota now employ both scientists at a château in France as they were offered any facilities and funding they require in any location they desired . Nicola Tesla famously said --- THE PRESENT IS THEIRS - THE FUTURE IS MINE . today you cannot exist without the inventions of Mr. Tesla . the US congress following his death in 1943 acclaimed him as the inventor of radio -- he also invented AC power which allowed the transmission of electricity . up to then each house - office had to have a DC generator he has many patents to his name including the fluorescent light -- neon tube ---x ray and many more including the DC motor which moves every train-- hotel lift --- industrial machine on the planet -- his experiments were legendary and all the worlds famous and rich wished to rub shoulders with him he could place two hundred large light bulbs on the grass un connected to anything and light them all from 5 miles away . when you examine many of his solutions which we benefit from today you realise that this man who died in poverty made the greatest contribution to our present world of any man in world history and he has no equal in mankind . a lot of work took place to obliterate his memory and the general public have never heard of him . a good place to start is the crystal. Denis Buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 5:02 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Mast as a sail??? Radio waves are electromagnetic energy ... It takes energy to create the radio waves ..... The battery is the electromagnetic energy sent out by the transmitter .... A crystal set converts the electromagnetic energy to sound .... Its "free energy" if the transmitter is using power that's being stolen from the power company .... Tinboat _______________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25544|25519|2011-03-19 09:37:43|coreyzzzz2000|Re: Mast as a sail???|Just an FYI for you guys on HHO. It is true that it is not efficient enough to recover the energy used to make the hydrogen, but there are some possible applications. The coal fired power plant I work at was actually looking into a special "heavy water" HHO type device to inject this very clean burning gas over the coal with the intent of reducing emissions from the unit. The cost of this special "heavy water" was the deal breaker. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:24:54PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > You would have to put a lot of energy into electrolysis only to get > > the same energy out, minus the friction. > > Heh. Well, Brent, there's no doubt in my mind that _you_ understand why > perpetual-motion machines can't exist; it's all right there in that one > sentence. The problem is that are a lot of people who don't really get > that, so the scammers get to have a field day. Add to that the desire > not to look foolish (and the resulting panicked hyping of The Magical > Gadget - because if a lot of people buy into it, then the mark doesn't > look quite so foolish), and you've got a whole lot of noise being > distributed at Internet speeds. And incredible amounts of money being > siphoned out of the suckers' pockets (the HHO rig that the TV people got > installed for their show cost them something like $3000 for about $10 > worth of parts.) > > Then there's the whole "free energy" gang. Even more fun - and *much* > more craziness for the same money (the HHO people have to at least > understand _something_ about cars, but these people are all about "pure > science")! Oh, and the "science" behind it ranges from amazingly whacky > to just outright insanity. Really awesome if you've got some time to > waste, and the hype is just the best. "Wiggly coils" (if I recall the > name correctly) that tune into alien power sources that The Gubmint > Doesn't Want You to Know About, $35,000 blocks of "molecular metal" that > "tap the fundamental energy of the Universe" and _almost_ work, and *for > sure* will work by next month... Just wonderful. :) > > > My brothers told me about some high school teachers they knew who > > tried to run an engine on hydrogen and oxygen. They miscalculated the > > cushioning effect of all the nitrogen in air. The engine blew itself > > into shrapnel the first firing. > > Whoa - cool! :) Kinda like trying to run an engine on dynamite. It's > theoretically possible, but... > > > 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 > | 25545|25519|2011-03-19 10:42:15|Ben Okopnik|Re: Mast as a sail???|On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 07:28:08AM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > Not necessary. You forgot one of the biggest transmitters nearby - The > Sun. Well, it is different frequency band, but still radio-waves. Right, but try tuning into it for free. I've got ~250W of solar panels on the boat, and they were *not* free by any means. 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| 25546|25546|2011-03-19 11:06:49|martin|Solar Panels|Ben could you describe your panels for me. I've started to look at the possiblities for Prarie Maid and would appreciate anyones information regarding what has worked well for them and how they are mounted and rigged to the boats electrical system. I know Costa Vida had one I beleive it to be about 85w.mounted between their backstays on a board of some kind. Thanks Martin...| 25547|25519|2011-03-19 11:13:15|Ben Okopnik|Re: Mast as a sail???|On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:51:39AM -0000, Denis Buggy wrote: > > undisputed founder of free energy movement Nicola Tesla [sigh] Oh, dear. Tesla had never heard of the "free energy movement", and he was certainly not its "founder" by any stretch of imagination. Brilliant inventor with great insight into how electricity works, yes; half-crazed, by any objective standard, also yes. Free energy, no. He had a hell of a lot of trouble getting funded, and was always trying to sell his ideas to the highest bidder. > many highly educated scientists will admit that they cannot define electricity properly ...and many seamstresses will admit that they don't know how to make a needle. Which is why you should never wear any clothes. > the crystal in the set is referred to as a semiconductor it downloads > energy ------if you stay with this part of the magic recipe I > believe a great future awaits --- free of want-- providing shelter > heat and power and above all light from a source no corporation can > steal or war extinguish --- that is now my official hobby like many > thousands of others around the world > --- one of us will make it -- Uh-huh. Is it the power of the Egyptian pyramids or the fundamental energy of the Universe this time? > most of the pioneers got killed --sidelined -- there is one > documentary which states "they have stopped killing us since the > 1980s "" and when you pursue this claim you are left in no doubt that > the study and research of free energy is not a healthy pastime . [laugh] Of course. The Government (the *real* one that rules the world, of course - because this happens in every country at the same time) _knows_ what you've been doing in your garage, and will kill you when you get close. 'Cause, y'know, they've got a file on everyone, and they keep very careful track of where every single person is along that discovery curve. What would happen, I wonder, if one of these brilliant "pioneers" put his discovery on the Net, sent a letter to every newspaper - all the anarchist ones, too (or are they under Government control also?), and hired a plane and dropped a few thousand leaflets explaining his invention? How is it that They have been able to kill off every single one without word getting out? Sure, you might not get paid (but then you might - because you'd be the world's top expert in this new technology), but it would be a better world, with Free Energy! (Conspiracy theories are *the* #1 indicator of the "foil hat" crowd.) > and the history of the us patent office in declaring work submitted as > now classified or un workable in their view and therefore not > deserving of a patent protection has created an extremely hostile > environment for research . Sure, sure. Um... why submit it there, then, instead of actually demonstrating it where people can see it? > you should look at a documentary about the scientists Dr Fleischmann > and Dr Pons who were ridiculed when they announced cold fusion in a > glass of water which they displayed on a desk in front of them . See, I happen to know about Fleischmann and Pons, so name-dropping like that doesn't impress me. They didn't have anything, and had faked the results. The word "science", you see, means that what you claim is *repeatable*. And researchers don't work in a vacuum: if the state of science is such that one person can get those results, it means that a thousand others are -this- close to getting those same results. So this kind of mythology falls on its ass. > their careers as world famous and highly regarded scientists was > destroyed --- why -- you people with an intrest in the sea will love > this -- they showed that if their research was pursued THERE WAS > SUFFICIENT ENERGY IN THE HALF FULL PINT GLASS OF WATER TO BOIL THE > PLANETS OCEANS . [Yawn] Nobody's had their "careers destroyed"; this is a basic fact of physics. If you cancelled one side of the atomic forces in one grain of sand (about 14 quintillion atoms in there, by the way), you'd have about 30 million tons of force as a resultant. Again, this kind of "facts" don't impress anyone but the ignorant - and nobody has their "careers destroyed" over the fact that ignorant people are impressed and flabbergasted by the nature of the universe we live in. > if you watch the film you will see that in the years which followed > their work was examined by most of the European universities and > also by the atomic commission of India and found to be valid . Sorry, that's an out-and-out lie. Please don't do that here; all you'll get for your pains is laughed at. [rest of nonsense snipped] 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| 25548|25519|2011-03-19 11:14:04|M.J. Malone|Re: Mast as a sail???|One has to be careful about exactly what is meant by perpetual motion being outlawed by a conservation of energy. For example electrets. They are the electrical equivalent of magnets with a constant, tiny voltage across them. If you short them out an even more tiny current will flow. The amount of energy is miniscule. If one hooked billions or trillions of then together on might be able to light a single led. So is this energy from nothing? No, no more than the Seebeck effect. Tiny amounts of heat are disappearing and becoming electrical energy. Yes, maybe a little problem with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but, there are plenty of examples of that -- little/local violations -- like diffusion pumps. Point is, I will not rule out something that creates macroscopically useful amounts of power apparently from nowhere, and I bet, if it is put in a well-insulated box, it will get colder and produce less power. No such thing as a free lunch, but, from time to time, one is able to steal just a little lunch from someone who is not using theirs. In total, energy is conserved. Matt Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:24:54PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: >> You would have to put a lot of energy into electrolysis only to get >> the same energy out, minus the friction. > > Heh. Well, Brent, there's no doubt in my mind that _you_ understand why > perpetual-motion machines can't exist; it's all right there in that one > sentence. The problem is that are a lot of people who don't really get > that, so the scammers get to have a field day. Add to that the desire > not to look foolish (and the resulting panicked hyping of The Magical > Gadget - because if a lot of people buy into it, then the mark doesn't > look quite so foolish), and you've got a whole lot of noise being > distributed at Internet speeds. And incredible amounts of money being > siphoned out of the suckers' pockets (the HHO rig that the TV people got > installed for their show cost them something like $3000 for about $10 > worth of parts.) > > Then there's the whole "free energy" gang. Even more fun - and *much* > more craziness for the same money (the HHO people have to at least > understand _something_ about cars, but these people are all about "pure > science")! Oh, and the "science" behind it ranges from amazingly whacky > to just outright insanity. Really awesome if you've got some time to > waste, and the hype is just the best. "Wiggly coils" (if I recall the > name correctly) that tune into alien power sources that The Gubmint > Doesn't Want You to Know About, $35,000 blocks of "molecular metal" that > "tap the fundamental energy of the Universe" and _almost_ work, and *for > sure* will work by next month... Just wonderful. :) > >> My brothers told me about some high school teachers they knew who >> tried to run an engine on hydrogen and oxygen. They miscalculated the >> cushioning effect of all the nitrogen in air. The engine blew itself >> into shrapnel the first firing. > > Whoa - cool! :) Kinda like trying to run an engine on dynamite. It's > theoretically possible, but... > > > 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 | 25549|25519|2011-03-19 11:16:17|M.J. Malone|Re: Mast as a sail???|I was going to mention the crystal radio that is powered from energy in the radio waves. A lunch going 99.9% un-eaten. Matt wild_explorer wrote: > Ben, > > I hope you still remember how to make radio-receiver which works without batteries? > > Coil with sliding ferrite core, capacitor, rectifier, headphones? It could be assembled on plywood board with wood screws.... Very nice and simple science project for children. > > They usually ask "Where is the battery???". Why do I hear music or talk-show? > > Does it qualifies as "Tapping to a "free" energy" ??? ;)) > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: >> >> to just outright insanity. Really awesome if you've got some time to >> waste, and the hype is just the best. "Wiggly coils" (if I recall the >> name correctly) that tune into alien power sources that The Gubmint >> Doesn't Want You to Know About, $35,000 blocks of "molecular metal" that >> "tap the fundamental energy of the Universe" and _almost_ work, and *for >> sure* will work by next month... Just wonderful. :) >> > > | 25550|25519|2011-03-19 11:20:25|M.J. Malone|Re: Mast as a sail???|Yes, on can get useful energy from the air, losses from transmission lines, but the amount of power is small, and miniscule compared to what is lost by the utility. Matt Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 02:17:42AM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: >> Ben, >> >> I hope you still remember how to make radio-receiver which works >> without batteries? > > Sure; I think that was the very first electronics project I ever built. > Used a piece of 2x4 and small nails driven through a piece of paper with > a schematic on it. > >> Coil with sliding ferrite core, capacitor, rectifier, headphones? > > You people with your fancy circuits. :) In *my* day, we "cooked" our own > radio crystals (iron sulfide, if I recall) and used a wire whisker to > tap them. _And_ we liked it that way! > > (I think I built the version you're thinking of about a month after the > first one.) > >> They usually ask "Where is the battery???". Why do I hear music or talk-show? > > Believe it or not, I actually thought of tapping the radio waves for > power when I was 14 or so and playing around with this stuff. I figured > that hooking up 1000 germanium diodes (yes, I was getting quite fancy > and modern by then) would give me about an amp and a half at 5v - plenty > for experimentation, and I'd never have to buy batteries again! > > Problem was, I couldn't afford to buy the diodes - even at a surplus > store. My father considered my passion for electronics "a stupid > childish game" that I'd "grow out of", so I had to find a way to pay for > everything myself. Less than three years later, I was making more money > than he was and living on my own. I don't think he ever forgave me. > >> Does it qualifies as "Tapping to a "free" energy" ??? ;)) > > If you're going to do that, you'd be better off building a 60Hz tank > circuit and tapping into the Mysterious Alien Power Source from the > ConEd (or whatever power company you have in your area) universe. Just > don't let'em catch you. :) > > > 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 | 25551|25546|2011-03-19 11:22:10|Ben Okopnik|Re: Solar Panels|On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 03:06:45PM -0000, martin wrote: > Ben could you describe your panels for me. Pretty basic, nothing special or unusual there. Found a great deal on box of 4 52W panels made by Siemens (and already had one from before), installed them, hooked them into a MPPT regulator (which recovers a rather significant amount of the energy that would otherwise be lost; I've measured a 10-25% increase in output when I take it in and out of the circuit.) Done deal. Between that and my wind generator, they make great power the year around. It's not quite enough for all my power needs, unfortunately, but it's pretty close. 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| 25552|25519|2011-03-19 11:29:45|Ben Okopnik|Re: Mast as a sail???|On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:16:03AM -0400, M.J. Malone wrote: > I was going to mention the crystal radio that is powered from energy > in the radio waves. A lunch going 99.9% un-eaten. ...which would disappear off the table pretty quickly if some hungry (and efficient) consumer ever stepped up. Fortunately, that's not really possible - or you'd be able to "short" a radio station to ground. :) 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| 25553|25519|2011-03-19 11:46:11|Ben Okopnik|Re: Mast as a sail???|On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:13:46AM -0400, M.J. Malone wrote: > One has to be careful about exactly what is meant by perpetual motion > being outlawed by a conservation of energy. [...] > No such thing as a free lunch, but, > from time to time, one is able to steal just a little lunch from > someone who is not using theirs. In total, energy is conserved. Well, sure. If you took a "free" rock from the top of a hill, tied it to line that went over a pulley, and dropped it, you'd get "free" lifting force - can't argue that one. But the "free energy" people aren't talking about anything sane like trading the energy of position for work, or heat for electricity; it's about the power of crystals and government supression and the mysterious undiscovered energy of the pyramids (oh, yeah - there's also the "wisdom of the ancients", which us modern people are too stupid to understand.) It's free power for everybody on earth, and then we'll all live happily ever after. You know, on my good days, I believe that the human race will survive and go on; that we'll make it out to the stars. Other times, I see people still believing in this kind of voodoo, and realize that some of them have access to weapons (instead of being safely locked away.) Ugh. Let's get back to talking about boats. 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| 25554|25519|2011-03-19 11:46:41|M.J. Malone|Re: Mast as a sail???|Yes, Tesla remotely powered light bulbs, far less efficiently than just running wires to them. Pons never demonstrated neutrons (a necessary product of fusion ), and his energy calculations were based on badly placed thermometer in a calorimeter. He jumped to the conclusion of cold fusion because he did not look for errors in the way he was calculating things. Trust me, he got the attention of real scientists and engineers who did his experiment, including a colleague of mine. The thing is fusion does occur in hydride-loaded metals, including paladium, however in a miniscule's miniscule rate. If Pons had been right, he would have found a way to increase the rate by billions or trillions. If it had been real, thousands of scientists and engineers would have claimed to have found ways to make it work better. After all, a few watts of power out of a metal as expensive as paladium is not a practical economy. If my colleague had been able to make it work, he would have pursued it full-bore. You have no idea how hard it is to get research money for something that will cost trillions to try, with no guarantee of success for decades. He has a wife and kids and bills, and no man in black showed up to tell him to quit. Pons made a mistake. That is all. No one was more disappointed that the hundreds of thousands of engineers ready to use it and make it better. But conspiracy is so much more entertaining (and profittable for a few) than truth. Matt Denis Buggy wrote: > dear Tom > > I have spent many hours looking at what you have stated below , and I have sifted through many of the dubious claims made on the internet -- my intrest was then awakened and I followed this by buying used copies of everything I could get on the undisputed founder of free energy movement Nicola Tesla and I also bought all I could find on the free energy movement good and fraudulent . > I have found much of it heavy going but I kept going and I then decided I would study electricity as formally as my time would allow -- I wound up studying physics also and much of the material is beyond me as my maths is the old style and I have to be content with a rough understanding of what is going on from about 9 sources at the same time as some books are written for people like me and some are post grad level . > many highly educated scientists will admit that they cannot define electricity properly and I am inspired by the fact that around the world people have found a way to download the immense energy that is freely available to us -- this energy is so plentiful that it is collected by accident on the American national grid of wires and causes chaos as the circuit breakers at local sub stations are set to break when a overload of power is available --- it also is strong enough to cancel TV and mobile phone networks which it does frequently . > the crystal in the set is referred to as a semiconductor it downloads energy ------if you stay with this part of the magic recipe I believe a great future awaits --- free of want-- providing shelter heat and power and above all light from a source no corporation can steal or war extinguish --- that is now my official hobby like many thousands of others around the world > --- one of us will make it -- > most of the pioneers got killed --sidelined -- there is one documentary which states "they have stopped killing us since the 1980s "" and when you pursue this claim you are left in no doubt that the study and research of free energy is not a healthy pastime . > and the history of the us patent office in declaring work submitted as now classified or un workable in their view and therefore not deserving of a patent protection has created an extremely hostile environment for research . > you should look at a documentary about the scientists Dr Fleischmann and Dr Pons who were ridiculed when they announced cold fusion in a glass of water which they displayed on a desk in front of them . > their careers as world famous and highly regarded scientists was destroyed --- why -- you people with an intrest in the sea will love this -- they showed that if their research was pursued THERE WAS SUFFICIENT ENERGY IN THE HALF FULL PINT GLASS OF WATER TO BOIL THE PLANETS OCEANS . > if you watch the film you will see that in the years which followed their work was examined by most of the European universities and also by the atomic commission of India and found to be valid . > Toyota now employ both scientists at a château in France as they were offered any facilities and funding they require in any location they desired . > Nicola Tesla famously said --- THE PRESENT IS THEIRS - THE FUTURE IS MINE . today you cannot exist without the inventions of Mr. Tesla . > the US congress following his death in 1943 acclaimed him as the inventor of radio -- he also invented AC power which allowed the transmission of electricity . > up to then each house - office had to have a DC generator > he has many patents to his name including the fluorescent light -- neon tube ---x ray and many more including the DC motor which moves every train-- hotel lift --- industrial machine on the planet -- his experiments were legendary and all the worlds famous and rich wished to rub shoulders with him he could place two hundred large light bulbs on the grass un connected to anything and light them all from 5 miles away . > when you examine many of his solutions which we benefit from today you realise that this man who died in poverty made the greatest contribution to our present world of any man in world history and he has no equal in mankind . > a lot of work took place to obliterate his memory and the general public have never heard of him . > a good place to start is the crystal. Denis Buggy > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tom > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 5:02 AM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Mast as a sail??? > > > > Radio waves are electromagnetic energy ... It takes energy to create the radio > waves ..... > > The battery is the electromagnetic energy sent out by the transmitter .... > A crystal set converts the electromagnetic energy to sound .... > Its "free energy" if the transmitter is using power that's being stolen from the > power company .... > > Tinboat > > _______________________________ > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25555|25519|2011-03-19 12:08:55|Ben Okopnik|Re: Mast as a sail???|On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:46:37AM -0400, M.J. Malone wrote: > > You have no idea how hard it is to get research > money for something that will cost trillions to try, with no > guarantee of success for decades. He has a wife and kids and bills, > and no man in black showed up to tell him to quit. Oh, he probably did; your colleague just doesn't remember it. They've got those ray guns that make you forget stuff. Didn't you see "The Men in Black"? > But conspiracy is so much more entertaining (and profittable for a few) than truth. Yeah, science is _boring_ and _mean._ All those "no" answers are bad for your self-esteem... I mean, what if you *like* the idea of the world being flat, and carried along by four elephants on a turtle's back? How dare that stupid science tell you that it's not like that! All disappointey and everything. :( 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| 25556|25546|2011-03-19 12:44:01|martin demers|Re: Solar Panels|I was told, better one big panel than a few small ones, loss of current through wiring when many panels used, true or false? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:21:56 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Solar Panels On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 03:06:45PM -0000, martin wrote: > Ben could you describe your panels for me. Pretty basic, nothing special or unusual there. Found a great deal on box of 4 52W panels made by Siemens (and already had one from before), installed them, hooked them into a MPPT regulator (which recovers a rather significant amount of the energy that would otherwise be lost; I've measured a 10-25% increase in output when I take it in and out of the circuit.) Done deal. Between that and my wind generator, they make great power the year around. It's not quite enough for all my power needs, unfortunately, but it's pretty close. 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] | 25557|25546|2011-03-19 13:25:39|Ben Okopnik|Re: Solar Panels|On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:43:52PM -0400, martin demers wrote: > > I was told, better one big panel than a few small ones, loss of > current through wiring when many panels used, true or false? False. There are arguments for and against "few big" vs. "many small", but that's not a valid one: the individual cells within the panels are all connected in parallel with thin little foil-like strips. I'm not really clear on the thought process of the people who think that this is better that, say, 8-gauge wire connecting the panels in parallel... 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| 25558|25519|2011-03-19 15:04:20|Aaron Williams|Re: Mast as a sail???|Ok here is MIT's way of getting more funding for research. Could it be real? http://techtv.mit.edu/videos/273-tiny-bubbles Aaron ________________________________ From: coreyzzzz2000 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 5:37:33 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Mast as a sail???   Just an FYI for you guys on HHO. It is true that it is not efficient enough to recover the energy used to make the hydrogen, but there are some possible applications. The coal fired power plant I work at was actually looking into a special "heavy water" HHO type device to inject this very clean burning gas over the coal with the intent of reducing emissions from the unit. The cost of this special "heavy water" was the deal breaker. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:24:54PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > You would have to put a lot of energy into electrolysis only to get > > the same energy out, minus the friction. > > Heh. Well, Brent, there's no doubt in my mind that _you_ understand why > perpetual-motion machines can't exist; it's all right there in that one > sentence. The problem is that are a lot of people who don't really get > that, so the scammers get to have a field day. Add to that the desire > not to look foolish (and the resulting panicked hyping of The Magical > Gadget - because if a lot of people buy into it, then the mark doesn't > look quite so foolish), and you've got a whole lot of noise being > distributed at Internet speeds. And incredible amounts of money being > siphoned out of the suckers' pockets (the HHO rig that the TV people got > installed for their show cost them something like $3000 for about $10 > worth of parts.) > > Then there's the whole "free energy" gang. Even more fun - and *much* > more craziness for the same money (the HHO people have to at least > understand _something_ about cars, but these people are all about "pure > science")! Oh, and the "science" behind it ranges from amazingly whacky > to just outright insanity. Really awesome if you've got some time to > waste, and the hype is just the best. "Wiggly coils" (if I recall the > name correctly) that tune into alien power sources that The Gubmint > Doesn't Want You to Know About, $35,000 blocks of "molecular metal" that > "tap the fundamental energy of the Universe" and _almost_ work, and *for > sure* will work by next month... Just wonderful. :) > > > My brothers told me about some high school teachers they knew who > > tried to run an engine on hydrogen and oxygen. They miscalculated the > > cushioning effect of all the nitrogen in air. The engine blew itself > > into shrapnel the first firing. > > Whoa - cool! :) Kinda like trying to run an engine on dynamite. It's > theoretically possible, but... > > > 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] | 25559|25519|2011-03-19 15:09:21|Aaron Williams|Re: Mast as a sail???|If anyone realy wants to know how much reasearch has been done start at www.Rexresearch.com  It is a free site just look for the right button. This site would even keep Ben O. busy for awhile. ;-)   ________________________________ From: Denis Buggy To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 2:51:39 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Mast as a sail???   dear Tom I have spent many hours looking at what you have stated below , and I have sifted through many of the dubious claims made on the internet -- my intrest was then awakened and I followed this by buying used copies of everything I could get on the undisputed founder of free energy movement Nicola Tesla and I also bought all I could find on the free energy movement good and fraudulent . I have found much of it heavy going but I kept going and I then decided I would study electricity as formally as my time would allow -- I wound up studying physics also and much of the material is beyond me as my maths is the old style and I have to be content with a rough understanding of what is going on from about 9 sources at the same time as some books are written for people like me and some are post grad level . many highly educated scientists will admit that they cannot define electricity properly and I am inspired by the fact that around the world people have found a way to download the immense energy that is freely available to us -- this energy is so plentiful that it is collected by accident on the American national grid of wires and causes chaos as the circuit breakers at local sub stations are set to break when a overload of power is available --- it also is strong enough to cancel TV and mobile phone networks which it does frequently . the crystal in the set is referred to as a semiconductor it downloads energy ------if you stay with this part of the magic recipe I believe a great future awaits --- free of want-- providing shelter heat and power and above all light from a source no corporation can steal or war extinguish --- that is now my official hobby like many thousands of others around the world --- one of us will make it -- most of the pioneers got killed --sidelined -- there is one documentary which states "they have stopped killing us since the 1980s "" and when you pursue this claim you are left in no doubt that the study and research of free energy is not a healthy pastime . and the history of the us patent office in declaring work submitted as now classified or un workable in their view and therefore not deserving of a patent protection has created an extremely hostile environment for research . you should look at a documentary about the scientists Dr Fleischmann and Dr Pons who were ridiculed when they announced cold fusion in a glass of water which they displayed on a desk in front of them . their careers as world famous and highly regarded scientists was destroyed --- why -- you people with an intrest in the sea will love this -- they showed that if their research was pursued THERE WAS SUFFICIENT ENERGY IN THE HALF FULL PINT GLASS OF WATER TO BOIL THE PLANETS OCEANS . if you watch the film you will see that in the years which followed their work was examined by most of the European universities and also by the atomic commission of India and found to be valid . Toyota now employ both scientists at a château in France as they were offered any facilities and funding they require in any location they desired . Nicola Tesla famously said --- THE PRESENT IS THEIRS - THE FUTURE IS MINE . today you cannot exist without the inventions of Mr. Tesla . the US congress following his death in 1943 acclaimed him as the inventor of radio -- he also invented AC power which allowed the transmission of electricity . up to then each house - office had to have a DC generator he has many patents to his name including the fluorescent light -- neon tube ---x ray and many more including the DC motor which moves every train-- hotel lift --- industrial machine on the planet -- his experiments were legendary and all the worlds famous and rich wished to rub shoulders with him he could place two hundred large light bulbs on the grass un connected to anything and light them all from 5 miles away . when you examine many of his solutions which we benefit from today you realise that this man who died in poverty made the greatest contribution to our present world of any man in world history and he has no equal in mankind . a lot of work took place to obliterate his memory and the general public have never heard of him . a good place to start is the crystal. Denis Buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 5:02 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Mast as a sail??? Radio waves are electromagnetic energy ... It takes energy to create the radio waves ..... The battery is the electromagnetic energy sent out by the transmitter .... A crystal set converts the electromagnetic energy to sound .... Its "free energy" if the transmitter is using power that's being stolen from the power company .... Tinboat _______________________________ [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 (24) Recent Activity: * New Members 11 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] | 25560|25546|2011-03-19 15:27:21|Mark Hamill|Re: Solar Panels|Ben: What is and Where would one buy an MPPT regulator?? Answered my own question on Google- www.golandcentury.com/mppt Thanks for the lead Ben. MarkH On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 03:06:45PM -0000, martin wrote: > Ben could you describe your panels for me. Pretty basic, nothing special or unusual there. Found a great deal on box of 4 52W panels made by Siemens (and already had one from before), installed them, hooked them into a MPPT regulator (which recovers a rather significant amount of the energy that would otherwise be lost; I've measured a 10-25% increase in output when I take it in and out of the circuit.) Done deal. Between that and my wind generator, they make great power the year around. It's not quite enough for all my power needs, unfortunately, but it's pretty close. 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] | 25561|25519|2011-03-19 17:46:18|brentswain38|Re: Mast as a sail???|If we keep out hands on our wallet, while studying these proposals , sometimes a really good idea comes out. All good ideas were initially ridiculed. Had we always listened to the sceptics, we would still be in the stone age. No conservative ever came up with a new idea, or innovation. We should never discourage anyone from thinking out side the box, but simply ask all the relevant questions, while guarding our wallets. When they start with a suggestion, of why not, encourage them. When they start by asking for cash, that is a warning light. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:24:54PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > You would have to put a lot of energy into electrolysis only to get > > the same energy out, minus the friction. > > Heh. Well, Brent, there's no doubt in my mind that _you_ understand why > perpetual-motion machines can't exist; it's all right there in that one > sentence. The problem is that are a lot of people who don't really get > that, so the scammers get to have a field day. Add to that the desire > not to look foolish (and the resulting panicked hyping of The Magical > Gadget - because if a lot of people buy into it, then the mark doesn't > look quite so foolish), and you've got a whole lot of noise being > distributed at Internet speeds. And incredible amounts of money being > siphoned out of the suckers' pockets (the HHO rig that the TV people got > installed for their show cost them something like $3000 for about $10 > worth of parts.) > > Then there's the whole "free energy" gang. Even more fun - and *much* > more craziness for the same money (the HHO people have to at least > understand _something_ about cars, but these people are all about "pure > science")! Oh, and the "science" behind it ranges from amazingly whacky > to just outright insanity. Really awesome if you've got some time to > waste, and the hype is just the best. "Wiggly coils" (if I recall the > name correctly) that tune into alien power sources that The Gubmint > Doesn't Want You to Know About, $35,000 blocks of "molecular metal" that > "tap the fundamental energy of the Universe" and _almost_ work, and *for > sure* will work by next month... Just wonderful. :) > > > My brothers told me about some high school teachers they knew who > > tried to run an engine on hydrogen and oxygen. They miscalculated the > > cushioning effect of all the nitrogen in air. The engine blew itself > > into shrapnel the first firing. > > Whoa - cool! :) Kinda like trying to run an engine on dynamite. It's > theoretically possible, but... > > > 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 > | 25562|25519|2011-03-19 17:48:24|brentswain38|Re: Mast as a sail???|When I was a kid, I made one up with three sets of headphones, for my brothers. Little did my father know, we were listening to the radio late into the night. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Ben, > > I hope you still remember how to make radio-receiver which works without batteries? > > Coil with sliding ferrite core, capacitor, rectifier, headphones? It could be assembled on plywood board with wood screws.... Very nice and simple science project for children. > > They usually ask "Where is the battery???". Why do I hear music or talk-show? > > Does it qualifies as "Tapping to a "free" energy" ??? ;)) > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > to just outright insanity. Really awesome if you've got some time to > > waste, and the hype is just the best. "Wiggly coils" (if I recall the > > name correctly) that tune into alien power sources that The Gubmint > > Doesn't Want You to Know About, $35,000 blocks of "molecular metal" that > > "tap the fundamental energy of the Universe" and _almost_ work, and *for > > sure* will work by next month... Just wonderful. :) > > > | 25563|25546|2011-03-19 17:49:50|Ben Okopnik|Re: Solar Panels|On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:27:23PM -0700, Mark Hamill wrote: > Ben: What is and Where would one buy an MPPT regulator?? Answered my own question on Google- www.golandcentury.com/mppt > Thanks for the lead Ben. MarkH You're welcome - just don't over-pay for them. I've seen one being sold at a boat show for $450... when you could get the same exact unit for ~$180 on th Net. 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| 25564|25519|2011-03-19 17:56:26|Ben Okopnik|Re: Mast as a sail???|On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:09:11PM -0700, Aaron Williams wrote: > If anyone realy wants to know how much reasearch has been done start at > www.Rexresearch.com  It is a free site just look for the right button. This site > would even keep Ben O. busy for awhile. ;-) About 10 seconds total. I could tell what it was after the first second (HINT: science-based sites don't use 24-pt Comic Sans for their text...), but I gave it the benefit of the doubt, and spent 10 times longer than that. Now, I want my 10 seconds back. :) 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| 25565|25565|2011-03-19 18:52:42|martin|More solar Panels|Ben; ON your boat what are the panel dimensions and where are they on the boat and are they in a fixed mount or can you aim them? Martin..| 25566|25565|2011-03-19 22:27:58|Ben Okopnik|Re: More solar Panels|On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:52:39PM -0000, martin wrote: > Ben; ON your boat what are the panel dimensions and where are they on > the boat and are they in a fixed mount or can you aim them? Martin.. Each panel is 48"x13", and there are 5 of them, mounted on top of the pilothouse. The boom partially shades them when it's down, so I usually have it up at about 45°. This looks a little odd, but I'm not giving up 3 amps for that. :) It's a fixed mount; I used "Veranda" plastic wood, 1"x2", and cut 1'-long pieces which I put at the ends of each long side. That way, there's air circulation and cooling under the panels, and the mainsheet can't snag them as the boom goes across. 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| 25567|25519|2011-03-19 22:42:08|Ben Okopnik|Re: Mast as a sail???|On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:04:12PM -0700, Aaron Williams wrote: > Ok here is MIT's way of getting more funding for research. Could it be real? > http://techtv.mit.edu/videos/273-tiny-bubbles Quote: "Water itself is a lousy fuel. It doesn't have much energy in it." If I recall correctly, I posted about Nocera's research here a couple of years ago; it's interesting in regard to its relatively low-energy osmosis potential. HHO isn't related to this in any way, incidentally; this isn't a case of adding .001% of hydrogen to a gasoline-driven engine (which is what HHO is), it's a case of being able to split H and O more cheaply, which is very important. But the video is worth watching just for the actual scientific approach and a good statement of where things actually stand. 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| 25568|25568|2011-03-20 01:41:28|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|running backstays and longer boom|could I use running backstays on a bermudian rig,like on a gaff rig, to allow me a longer boom? is this something sometimes use? Martin| 25569|25519|2011-03-20 06:28:04|Marc|Re: Mast as a sail???|Tesla did not start a "free energy" movement, or any other movement. This is a kind of cult that has grown up around Tesla after his death. You will find no such claim in any of Tesla's extensive writings, all of which have been reprinted by the Tesla Museum. It is all made up by people using his name to lend credence to pseudoscience. I think the idea got planted in people's minds by the Colorado Springs experiments in which Tesla tried to DISTRIBUTE electrical power without wires. That power was generated by a perfectly conventional generating station in town - not "free" in any sense. Marc --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > my intrest was then awakened and I followed this by buying used copies of everything I could get on the undisputed founder of free energy movement Nicola Tesla and I also bought all I could find on the free energy movement good and fraudulent . | 25570|25570|2011-03-20 07:03:13|Denis Buggy|Re: energy movement|-- Matt you are a man who rarely fails to figure things out properly however this time you have rushed in as has Ben --- my posting seems to have triggered some rushed impulse in both of you to ridicule my comments without any research or thought . your own posting contains all the answers if you examine it carefully ---- both scientists submitted an experiment which you admit in your piece that showed a nuclear reaction was taking place in a glass of water -- you then admit that they were successful however the few watts produced were not economic in your view ---- THIS WAS THE EXPERIMENT that is all --- they were successful you admit it ---however you then say something which makes no sense whatever ---if they had been right they would have found a way to increase their already successful result and you judge the entire thing a failure because of this -- this is the same as watching your child take their first steps and now the world knows this child can walk and be mobile until old age and you suddenly shout to your child stay on your ass for the remainder of your life because you did not run the 100 meters in under 10 seconds on the your first day you useless piece of crap . they demonstrated the production of helium which could only be produced from water by a nuclear reaction --this was confirmed by many of the worlds universities and by the atomic commission of India -- you can watch these scientists confirm this on a free film on google called FIRE FROM WATER there are other documentaries which also show professors resigning from their faculties in protest at the treatment of Fleischmann and Pons and more importantly the total fatwah imposed on any university conducting research in this field so much so that scientists will admit it is death to even mention it and they have to use a new term ZERO POINT ENERGY RESEARCH to continue their work . I did not mention men in black however my view on that is that you have no idea of what you are talking about until you al least inform yourself of what has happened . as regards myself I think the men in white coats will beat the men in black coats to me first as I am a man in his 50s who would not pass a Childs physics exam who has notions of downloading power from the universe .. as regards Bens comments --- they are too disturbed to be dealt with rationally.. Denis Buggy Pons never demonstrated neutrons (a necessary product of fusion ), and his energy calculations were based on badly placed thermometer in a calorimeter. He jumped to the conclusion of cold fusion because he did not look for errors in the way he was calculating things. Trust me, he got the attention of real scientists and engineers who did his experiment, including a colleague of mine. The thing is fusion does occur in hydride-loaded metals, including paladium, however in a miniscule's miniscule rate. If Pons had been right, he would have found a way to increase the rate by billions or trillions. If it had been real, thousands of scientists and engineers would have claimed to have found ways to make it work better. After all, a few watts of power out of a metal as expensive as paladium is not a practical economy. If my colleague had been able to make it work, he would have pursued it full-bore. You have no idea how hard it is to get research money for something that will cost trillions to try, with no guarantee of success for decades. He has a wife and kids and bills, and no man in black showed up to tell him to quit. Pons made a mistake. That is all. No one was more disappointed that the hundreds of thousands of engineers ready to use it and make it better. But conspiracy is so much more entertaining (and profittable for a few) than truth. Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25571|25519|2011-03-20 07:49:50|Denis Buggy|Re: Mast as a sail???|TESLA DID START THE FREE ENERGY MOVEMENT -- HE DID SO UN WITTINGLY -- MOST OF THE GROUPS INVOLVED IN RESEARCH TODAY WILL CLAIM HIM AS THE FOUNDER OF THE MOVEMENT WHICH ONLY STARTED YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH -- THEIR WORK IS NOT CULTISH AND THEY OPERATE TOTALLY INDEPENDENTLY FROM EACH OTHER IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH PROPER PATENT RIGHTS IF SUCCESSFUL AFTERWARDS . I NEVER SAID TESLA CREATED FREE ENERGY NOR TRANSMITTED FREE ENERGY YOUR COMMENT S BELOW ARE FALSE --IF YOU HAD NOT RUSHED IN YOU WOULD RE READ WHAT I SAID AND IT WOULD SHOW I MERELY STATED HE TRANSMITTED POWER WITHOUT WIRES OVER A GOOD DISTANCE AND THE LIGHTING OF A TWO HUNDRED BULBS LEFT OF A HILLSIDE 5 MILES AWAY WAS PROOF OF THIS . DENIS BUGGY Tesla did not start a "free energy" movement, or any other movement. This is a kind of cult that has grown up around Tesla after his death. You will find no such claim in any of Tesla's extensive writings, all of which have been reprinted by the Tesla Museum. It is all made up by people using his name to lend credence to pseudoscience. I think the idea got planted in people's minds by the Colorado Springs experiments in which Tesla tried to DISTRIBUTE electrical power without wires. That power was generated by a perfectly conventional generating station in town - not "free" in any sense. Marc --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Denis Buggy" wrote: > my intrest was then awakened and I followed this by buying used copies of everything I could get on the undisputed founder of free energy movement Nicola Tesla and I also bought all I could find on the free energy movement good and fraudulent . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25572|25568|2011-03-20 10:04:13|martin demers|Re: running backstays and longer boom|That would allow me a shorter mast to lower center of gravity and compensate for a higher pilolthouse top and also the weight of the steel mast, I would use a longer sail. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mdemers2005@... Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 05:41:28 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] running backstays and longer boom could I use running backstays on a bermudian rig,like on a gaff rig, to allow me a longer boom? is this something sometimes use? Martin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25573|25568|2011-03-20 12:01:49|Donal Philby|Re: running backstays and longer boom|> Posted by: "mdemers2005@..." mdemers2005@... inter4905 > Date: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:41 pm ((PDT)) > could I use running backstays on a bermudian rig,like on a gaff rig, to > allow me a longer boom? is this something sometimes use? Martin, First, consider the practicality of using longer boom for offshore work, especially downwind when the boom could dip as you roll. It also requires more serious consideration of sheeting power and placement. Otherwise, two sources of information: See Danny Greene's book "The Art, Science & Magic of Cruising Boat Design." Look at design for his own boat, Brazen. Large, full batten main on the fractional rig uses runners, but after the first reef, they can be both be left tight. See Ruehl Parker's designs. http://www.parker-marine.com On a couple of his designs with full batten mains he has the bottom batten and boom of the same length. Seems to work, providing more SA without the longer boom. I'm not convinced that the traditional long booms of the old gaffer designs was all that efficient. See modern gaff design by David Burnett. He combines sail shape closer to the extreme roach sails of racing craft with the lower tech gaff system. Includes lots of SA (and up high where the winds are), with shortened gaff and boom. http://www.burnettyachtdesign.co.uk/ Donal| 25574|25568|2011-03-20 16:23:57|Norm Moore|Re: running backstays and longer boom|Brian Toss explains a really slick, and simple way to rig running backs with shock cord so they retract out of the way when released when tacking. You may also want to look at "Hand, Reef, and Steer" by Tom Cunliffe p 55-57. He wondered why the old gaff rigs with long booms all had their booms pitch up aft, especially when rigged for rough, open water. In his case bitter experience taught him that booms that aren't will dip into the waves on the leeward roll and the force imposed on the goose neck can be extreme. The mainsail needs be cut to match the angle needed to keep them out of the water. Norm Moore 559-645-5314 ________________________________ From: "mdemers2005@..." To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 9:41:28 PM Subject: [origamiboats] running backstays and longer boom could I use running backstays on a bermudian rig,like on a gaff rig, to allow me a longer boom? is this something sometimes use? Martin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25575|25570|2011-03-20 22:51:56|Ben Okopnik|Re: energy movement|On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:03:17AM -0000, Denis Buggy wrote: > > Matt you are a man who rarely fails to figure things out > properly however this time you have rushed in as has Ben --- my > posting seems to have triggered some rushed impulse in both of > you to ridicule my comments without any research or thought . Denis, when someone makes statements that are patently false and ridiculous, they don't require any research: one of the most basic rules of logic, which you're clearly unfamiliar with, is that anyone making extraordinary claims must supply extraordinary proof. This ignorance _alone_ brands you as anything but a scientist or even any sort of researcher, and makes you completely unqualified to make any statements regarding science. All you have done is talk nonsense, and then "support" it with ever more hysterical nonsense and as much confusing noise and smoke as you could stuff into your original false statements. Then you added straight-out lies to the mix. This is the standard technique of the "zero-point energy" and other scammers; it never varies, and the stink of it is both obvious and disgusting. When you actually _have_ something real - something other than the endless line of bull that you've learned from that echo chamber - then feel free to demonstrate it. Until then, you really have nothing useful to say about the topic. In the past, you've had some useful things to say about paint, engines, and such; stick to that. You actually make some sense when you talk about those. 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| 25576|25570|2011-03-21 05:53:22|Denis Buggy|Re: energy movement|BEN YOUR COMMENTS BELOW INITIALLY PROVOKED A TYPICAL NEGATIVE RESPONSE IN ME HOWEVER THE COMMENTS HAVE NOW GROWN ON ME A LITTLE FOLLOWING A FULL AUDIT OF THE CRIMES I HAVE COMMITTED WHICH ARE EXTENSIVE I TRIED TO FIND PARALLELS TO MY GUILT AND SHAME IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND AND MAYBE ONLY THE RULING DELIVERED AT NUREMBERG AGAINST THE NAZI REGIME COMES CLOSE TO ALL THE CRIMES I AM GUILTY OF --- I AM GRATEFUL TO YOU FOR YOUR WORK AND COMMENTS AND I NOW KNOW I WILL NOT DIE IN OBSCURITY THANKS TO YOUR GOOD SELF. -- ALL THE BEST DENIS ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Okopnik Denis, when someone makes statements that are patently false and ridiculous, they don't require any research: one of the most basic rules of logic, which you're clearly unfamiliar with, is that anyone making extraordinary claims must supply extraordinary proof. This ignorance _alone_ brands you as anything but a scientist or even any sort of researcher, and makes you completely unqualified to make any statements regarding science. All you have done is talk nonsense, and then "support" it with ever more hysterical nonsense and as much confusing noise and smoke as you could stuff into your original false statements. Then you added straight-out lies to the mix. This is the standard technique of the "zero-point energy" and other scammers; it never varies, and the stink of it is both obvious and disgusting. When you actually _have_ something real - something other than the endless line of bull that you've learned from that echo chamber - then feel free to demonstrate it. Until then, you really have nothing useful to say about the topic. In the past, you've had some useful things to say about paint, engines, and such; stick to that. You actually make some sense when you talk about those. 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] | 25577|25570|2011-03-21 10:19:45|Ben Okopnik|Re: energy movement|On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:53:26AM -0000, Denis Buggy wrote: > BEN > YOUR COMMENTS BELOW INITIALLY PROVOKED A TYPICAL NEGATIVE RESPONSE IN ME "Typical negative response" such as SHOUTING IN YOUR POSTS? Seems that's still going on. > HOWEVER THE COMMENTS HAVE NOW GROWN ON ME A LITTLE FOLLOWING A > FULL AUDIT OF THE CRIMES I HAVE COMMITTED WHICH ARE EXTENSIVE That's far, far too grandiose a description of your actions (rather unsurprising, that.) Trying to catch a free ride on the coattails of those who have actually done the work has never been anything more than a despicable personal characteristic. 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| 25578|397|2011-03-21 11:59:54|badpirate36|Re: location of aluminum swain hull in Nanaimo|Better late than never /.o) Erkan Gursoy of Aldura boats was the builder. I purchased the boat from him last year. She is currently moored in North Vancouver. I'll post a pic. I just stumbled into this forum...JACKPOT! --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Alex and Kim Christie wrote: > > Ahah, it was in the back of my mind that this may have > been the case, the tracks crossing the road twice, but > I didn't act on it. Will attempt another try on my > way back up Vancouver Island on Monday. Everyone keep > their eyes peeled for new photos, should I have some > success! > > Alex Christie > > (moderator) > > --- Daryl Carriere wrote: > > I just talked to Erkan on the phone , his boat is > > still in his yard at 145 > > Prideaux. The tracks cross Prideaux in two places. > > Darryl > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > Build your own website in minutes and for free at http://ca.geocities.com > | 25579|397|2011-03-21 12:31:41|j fisher|Re: location of aluminum swain hull in Nanaimo|That is a nice boat. I looked at it a few years ago, but passed on it since I wanted more standing head room and twin keels. Quite the builder and a real sailor. On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 6:42 PM, badpirate36 wrote: > > > Better late than never /.o) > Erkan Gursoy of Aldura boats was the builder. I purchased the boat from him > last year. She is currently moored in North Vancouver. I'll post a pic. > I just stumbled into this forum...JACKPOT! > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Alex and Kim Christie > wrote: > > > > Ahah, it was in the back of my mind that this may have > > been the case, the tracks crossing the road twice, but > > I didn't act on it. Will attempt another try on my > > way back up Vancouver Island on Monday. Everyone keep > > their eyes peeled for new photos, should I have some > > success! > > > > Alex Christie > > > > (moderator) > > > > --- Daryl Carriere wrote: > > > I just talked to Erkan on the phone , his boat is > > > still in his yard at 145 > > > Prideaux. The tracks cross Prideaux in two places. > > > Darryl > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > > Build your own website in minutes and for free at > http://ca.geocities.com > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25580|25570|2011-03-21 13:45:32|Matt Malone|Re: energy movement|To be clear, Fleischmann and Pons never produced cold fusion. The experiment failed, however, all good science demands that experiments be repeated first, not just ridiculed. I already saw it repeated (the lab I was at already had heavy water, and palladium kicking around), and it did not work. But anyone (in a semi-free country) could buy the necessary ingredients and repeat it in their garage. DANGER! Actually doing the Pons and Fleischmann experiment will load the palladium with hydrogen gas in a highly compressed state. Doing this experiment and then dropping the palladium may cause it to explode like a sponge soaked with super-heated, but still liquid rocket fuel -- but with a sponge that makes excellent shrapnel. Metal hydrides have quite unexpected properties, they can be very brittle, like glass, and very hazardous, palladium particularly. I am really quite serious about this danger. - Electrolyte/Fuel: Heavy Water: $10 x 10 bottles http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=advanced_search_result&search_in_description=1&zenid=111c77f5ca94043d8d21d99fba5cf01a&keyword=heavy+water - Electrode/Reactor: Palladium: $125 http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=advanced_search_result&search_in_description=1&keyword=palladium - Calorimeter/Containment vessel: small pickle jar, from the trash, free (just make sure you wash it out well). - Insulation for the calorimeter / containment vessel: 1 bat of pink fibreglass insulation, left over from that rec-room reno - Outer containment: plastic food wrap, from the kitchen (it looks better than duct tape, but don't let the wife catch you). - Initiating Power Supply: small 9V DC adapter, from some old answering machine, free - Input Power Measurement: two digital multimeters, to measure voltage and current separately, $20 each, Canadian Tire - Output Power Measurement: mercury thermometer, 0 to 100C, $20 at a science surplus store, - Wrist watch that counts off seconds, - Calculator $10 --------------------------- The value of repeating the Fleischmann and Pons experiment for the 200,000th time and verifying it does not work: Priceless exercise of the scientific method. Just make sure to buy the heavy water and the palladium from the same suppler so that you might have your camera read to take a picture of the men in black -- in sort of a two for the price of one deal. It also gives plausible deniability, so that when it fails, one can say that it really worked, but "they" showed up, sabotaged the experiment, and erased everyone's memory. I could have more fun with this, but I will restrain myself. The point is it is an experiment that can be conducted in a garage, and was conducted in many of the top labs shortly after the announcement. It never worked. Believe me, if it worked, I would have one as an executive toy on my desk right now, and would have it percolating coffee.... Without the plastic food wrap of course -- I would use gold plated kapton, because that would look really cool in an executive toy. I think I will call it.... Mr. Coffee..... People might even buy it, even if it never worked. There is money in this, I swear there is. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: buggy@... Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:03:17 +0000 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: energy movement -- Matt you are a man who rarely fails to figure things out properly however this time you have rushed in as has Ben --- my posting seems to have triggered some rushed impulse in both of you to ridicule my comments without any research or thought . your own posting contains all the answers if you examine it carefully ---- both scientists submitted an experiment which you admit in your piece that showed a nuclear reaction was taking place in a glass of water -- you then admit that they were successful however the few watts produced were not economic in your view ---- THIS WAS THE EXPERIMENT that is all --- they were successful you admit it ---however you then say something which makes no sense whatever ---if they had been right they would have found a way to increase their already successful result and you judge the entire thing a failure because of this -- this is the same as watching your child take their first steps and now the world knows this child can walk and be mobile until old age and you suddenly shout to your child stay on your ass for the remainder of your life because you did not run the 100 meters in under 10 seconds on the your first day you useless piece of crap . they demonstrated the production of helium which could only be produced from water by a nuclear reaction --this was confirmed by many of the worlds universities and by the atomic commission of India -- you can watch these scientists confirm this on a free film on google called FIRE FROM WATER there are other documentaries which also show professors resigning from their faculties in protest at the treatment of Fleischmann and Pons and more importantly the total fatwah imposed on any university conducting research in this field so much so that scientists will admit it is death to even mention it and they have to use a new term ZERO POINT ENERGY RESEARCH to continue their work . I did not mention men in black however my view on that is that you have no idea of what you are talking about until you al least inform yourself of what has happened . as regards myself I think the men in white coats will beat the men in black coats to me first as I am a man in his 50s who would not pass a Childs physics exam who has notions of downloading power from the universe .. as regards Bens comments --- they are too disturbed to be dealt with rationally.. Denis Buggy Pons never demonstrated neutrons (a necessary product of fusion ), and his energy calculations were based on badly placed thermometer in a calorimeter. He jumped to the conclusion of cold fusion because he did not look for errors in the way he was calculating things. Trust me, he got the attention of real scientists and engineers who did his experiment, including a colleague of mine. The thing is fusion does occur in hydride-loaded metals, including paladium, however in a miniscule's miniscule rate. If Pons had been right, he would have found a way to increase the rate by billions or trillions. If it had been real, thousands of scientists and engineers would have claimed to have found ways to make it work better. After all, a few watts of power out of a metal as expensive as paladium is not a practical economy. If my colleague had been able to make it work, he would have pursued it full-bore. You have no idea how hard it is to get research money for something that will cost trillions to try, with no guarantee of success for decades. He has a wife and kids and bills, and no man in black showed up to tell him to quit. Pons made a mistake. That is all. No one was more disappointed that the hundreds of thousands of engineers ready to use it and make it better. But conspiracy is so much more entertaining (and profittable for a few) than truth. 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]| 25581|25570|2011-03-21 14:59:13|Ben Okopnik|Re: energy movement|On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 01:45:30PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > I could have more fun with this, but I will restrain myself. The > point is it is an experiment that can be conducted in a garage, and > was conducted in many of the top labs shortly after the announcement. > It never worked. Yeah, but that's not the important part! It _could_ have worked if only [insert over-unity-generator/zero-point-energy/other-whacko-magic here]. And *that* is what the Evil Gubmint is hiding from us. Otherwise, we would all be free and happy, and spend our lives eating bonbons! 'Cause, y'know, life doesn't take any effort if you know The Secret. (Why anybody would _want_ such a life is completely beoynd me, but I guess tastes vary.) > Believe me, if it worked, I would have one as an executive toy on my > desk right now, and would have it percolating coffee.... Without the > plastic food wrap of course -- I would use gold plated kapton, because > that would look really cool in an executive toy. I think I will call > it.... Mr. Coffee..... People might even buy it, even if it never > worked. There is money in this, I swear there is. Sure - just add lots of weasel wording and a bunch of exclamation points, as well as some dark hints of conspiracy theory, and make up a web page with 24-pt Comic Sans. If P.T. Barnum was right - and no one's proved him wrong yet - the endless stream of suckers will never run out. (Hmm. Suckers. Mr. Coffee. Gold-plated straws. Hey, Matt - wanna go partners?) 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| 25582|25568|2011-03-21 15:36:24|brentswain38|Re: running backstays and longer boom|Not worth the hassle. A longer boom would give you a weather helm, which would require you to reef earlier, negating any gain in anything over light winds. I do recommend running back stays, down from the staysail tang, to back up the staysail, in strong winds. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > could I use running backstays on a bermudian rig,like on a gaff rig, to allow me a longer boom? is this something sometimes use? > > Martin > | 25583|25570|2011-03-21 17:59:36|David Frantz|Re: energy movement|My problem with the nuts that have adopted Tesla is this, why not concentrate on the amazing things he did do. There is no doubt the man was smart and inventive, I just don't understand the fringe elements that wants to turn him into some sort of alien from another dimension. More so why Tesla and not some other genius that we have seen over the centuries? Oh and to tie this into boating, Tesla did some interesting stuff with remote control of boats. On Mar 21, 2011, at 2:59 PM000, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 01:45:30PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: >> >> I could have more fun with this, but I will restrain myself. The >> point is it is an experiment that can be conducted in a garage, and >> was conducted in many of the top labs shortly after the announcement. >> It never worked. > > Yeah, but that's not the important part! It _could_ have worked if only > [insert over-unity-generator/zero-point-energy/other-whacko-magic here]. > And *that* is what the Evil Gubmint is hiding from us. Otherwise, we > would all be free and happy, and spend our lives eating bonbons! 'Cause, > y'know, life doesn't take any effort if you know The Secret. > > (Why anybody would _want_ such a life is completely beoynd me, but I > guess tastes vary.) > >> Believe me, if it worked, I would have one as an executive toy on my >> desk right now, and would have it percolating coffee.... Without the >> plastic food wrap of course -- I would use gold plated kapton, because >> that would look really cool in an executive toy. I think I will call >> it.... Mr. Coffee..... People might even buy it, even if it never >> worked. There is money in this, I swear there is. > > Sure - just add lots of weasel wording and a bunch of exclamation > points, as well as some dark hints of conspiracy theory, and make up a > web page with 24-pt Comic Sans. If P.T. Barnum was right - and no one's > proved him wrong yet - the endless stream of suckers will never run out. > > (Hmm. Suckers. Mr. Coffee. Gold-plated straws. Hey, Matt - wanna go partners?) > > > 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 > > > | 25584|25570|2011-03-21 23:14:11|Ben Okopnik|Re: energy movement|On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 05:59:01PM -0400, David Frantz wrote: > My problem with the nuts that have adopted Tesla is this, why not > concentrate on the amazing things he did do. There is no doubt the > man was smart and inventive, I just don't understand the fringe > elements that wants to turn him into some sort of alien from another > dimension. More so why Tesla and not some other genius that we have > seen over the centuries? The answer is "electricity". It's everywhere, it's "mysterious", and it's more powerful and accessible than the magnetic force - and, most excitingly, it can kill you. Plus, Edison was a hard-headed, practical worker-bee type - not much romance there - while Tesla was a wild-haired, flamboyant weirdo from Furrin Parts (where people like Madame Blavatsky and Rasputin came from, or some place near there) who had deep, soulful relationships with pigeons. That's a situation that's tailor-made for con men; you couldn't dream up anything better for those purposes. 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| 25585|25570|2011-03-22 03:26:42|Giuseppe Bergman|Re: energy movement|Ben, I like Your very dedicated way of seeing stories in Tesla's hairdo. Once bored with "Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business" You could become a very sought-after spin-doc or script-wizard for Mr Bruckheimer and his peers down there near Los Angeles ... G_B Am 22.03.2011 um 04:13 schrieb Ben Okopnik: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 05:59:01PM -0400, David Frantz wrote: > > My problem with the nuts that have adopted Tesla is this, why not > > concentrate on the amazing things he did do. There is no doubt the > > man was smart and inventive, I just don't understand the fringe > > elements that wants to turn him into some sort of alien from another > > dimension. More so why Tesla and not some other genius that we have > > seen over the centuries? > > The answer is "electricity". It's everywhere, it's "mysterious", and > it's more powerful and accessible than the magnetic force - and, most > excitingly, it can kill you. Plus, Edison was a hard-headed, practical > worker-bee type - not much romance there - while Tesla was a > wild-haired, flamboyant weirdo from Furrin Parts (where people like > Madame Blavatsky and Rasputin came from, or some place near there) who > had deep, soulful relationships with pigeons. That's a situation that's > tailor-made for con men; you couldn't dream up anything better for those > purposes. > > 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]| 25586|25570|2011-03-22 04:41:04|Denis Buggy|Re: energy movement|-SOME OTHER NUTS WHO ADOPTED TESLA ARE THE WORLDS SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY WHO IN 1960 GRANTED HIM THE GREAT HONOUR OF HAVING A UNIT OF MEASUREMENT NAMED AFTER HIM . THE UNIT OF TESLA WAS ADOPTED WORLDWIDE WITHOUT OPPOSITION FROM ANYBODY AS THE UNIT OF MEASUREMENT OF MAGNETIC INDUCTION TESLA THEN BECAME PART OF A GROUP OF ONLY 15 WORLD SCIENTISTS WHICH HAVE BEEN GRANTED THIS HONOUR INCLUDING NEWTON -- HERTZ --AND VOLTA . NOBODY WOULD CONTEST HE WAS ODD . I AM QUIET CONTENT TO STUDY A PERSON AND BE HAPPY THAT I DO NOT HAVE THE INTELLECTUAL ABILITY TO MATCH WHAT HE CAN DO HE WAS ONE OF MANKIND'S MOST EXTRAORDINARY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS WHO THOUGHT AND WORKED IN A MANNER SO ADVANCED THAT THE WORLD HAS YET TO CATCH UP -- HOWEVER IT IS TRYING AND EVERYTHING FROM OUR NEWEST ELECTRICAL CARS TO HAND HELD CHEAP TORCHES NOW FIGHT TO USE HIS NAME AS IT IS BECOMING UNDERSTOOD THAT 100 YEARS FROM NOW THE WORLD WILL NOT HAVE CAUGHT UP WITH MR TESLA AND THAT IS NOT HIS FAULT OR MINE . a happy Tesla nut Denis Buggy From: David Frantz My problem with the nuts that have adopted Tesla is this, why not concentrate on the amazing things he did do. There is no doubt the man was smart and inventive, I just don't understand the fringe elements that wants to turn him into some sort of alien from another dimension. More so why Tesla and not some other genius that we have seen over the centuries? Recent Activity: a.. New Members 10 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]| 25587|25587|2011-03-22 06:58:10|Kim|Grinding-off outside welds.|Hi everyone ... Another welding question: soon I'll have finished welding all the major inside seams - the inside joins of the cabin and wheelhouse, the inside welding on the chines and centerline, the inside welding where the transom meets the hull sides, etc, etc. Next I'll be grinding the outside lengths of these seams so that the plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other, and then welding the same seams on the outside. My question is: after welding the outside seams, should I then grind the weld right back so that the plates at the joins are again flush with each other? Would not doing so result in most of the outside welding behind ground off? Does that matter? Or should I leave a certain amount of the outside weld in place and not grind it all off? Sorry if this is a really basic question! But as I've said before, I'm a bit of a newbie to the wonderful world of steel boatbuilding, so any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________| 25588|25570|2011-03-22 07:15:06|Ben Okopnik|Re: energy movement|On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 08:26:38AM +0100, Giuseppe Bergman wrote: > Ben, I like Your very dedicated way of seeing stories in Tesla's hairdo. > Once bored with "Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business" > You could become a very sought-after spin-doc or script-wizard for > Mr Bruckheimer and his peers down there near Los Angeles ... BZZZZT! Reading comprehension fail alert! Giuseppe - if English is not your primary language, then your misunderstanding makes sense. (If it _is_ your primary language, then your third-grade English teacher should be ashamed.) I was answering David's question of why certain people would choose Tesla as the focus of their mysticism - I wasn't saying that this is my opinion of him. The fact that I understand how they think does not mean that I believe as they do. If you still don't understand that there's a difference between butchers and cows, or barbers and their customers, or even employees and employers, perhaps remedial English would be of help? Next time, you really should spend some time considering whether your comprehension ability is up to the task before you jump into a conversation - _particularly_ if you're going to try sarcasm. Because otherwise, you're going to look mighty foolish. Just sayin'. 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| 25589|25587|2011-03-22 07:18:27|john|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|He Kim I am a dreamer when it comes to my own steel boat but I have a background when it comes to commerical steel constructon and I would not grind any welds I would just follow standard commercal practce for pantng. I would do whatever Devoe suggests. Good Luck John > > > ______________________________________________________________ > | 25590|25587|2011-03-22 08:09:25|Jay K. Jeffries|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|Kim, The potential for corrosion is reduced is the welds are ground down. This is per materials found in the ABYC Marine Corrosion Certification Program. R/Jay Respectfully, Jay K. Jeffries Andros Is., Bahamas From: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com [mailto:origamiboats@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 6:58 AM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Grinding-off outside welds. Hi everyone ... Another welding question: soon I'll have finished welding all the major inside seams - the inside joins of the cabin and wheelhouse, the inside welding on the chines and centerline, the inside welding where the transom meets the hull sides, etc, etc. Next I'll be grinding the outside lengths of these seams so that the plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other, and then welding the same seams on the outside. My question is: after welding the outside seams, should I then grind the weld right back so that the plates at the joins are again flush with each other? Would not doing so result in most of the outside welding behind ground off? Does that matter? Or should I leave a certain amount of the outside weld in place and not grind it all off? Sorry if this is a really basic question! But as I've said before, I'm a bit of a newbie to the wonderful world of steel boatbuilding, so any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Kim. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25591|25570|2011-03-22 08:28:08|Denis Buggy|Re: energy movement|-BEN JUST TO HELP YOU A LITTLE MORE TESLA DRESSED VERY FORMALLY AND DID NOT HAVE WILD HAIR -- HE HAD A VERY NEAT APPERANCE ALWAYS AND WAS FROM SERBIA. PLEASE TELL US ALL WHERE YOUR SURNAME OKOPNIK COMES FROM AND WHAT DOES IT TRANSLATE TO IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE -- TO HELP YOU ALONG AND GET YOU STARTED I WILL EXPLAIN MY OWN . BUGGY = O BOGAIGH IN THE IRISH LANGUAGE prounounced OO VOGIG and means BOG = SOFT IGH =OF THERE FORE IT MEANS gentle man --- soft man --- or idiot NOW BEN I HAVE BROKEN THE ICE -- THE WORLD AWAITS YOUR WISDOM denis buggy while Tesla was a >> wild-haired, flamboyant weirdo from Furrin Parts (where people like >> Madame Blavatsky and Rasputin came from, or some place near there) >> >> 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 > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > | 25592|25570|2011-03-22 12:56:31|Giuseppe Bergman|Re: energy movement|Ben, Carissimo, I still DO love Your way of inventing weird exegeses to prejudice people about something You dislike, energetic mysticisms that are, in this case. You're right with English not beeing my very first language, but I doubt this to be the cause for any made-up differences You try to see in our way of looking at other people's ideas. The problem might well consist of British and American ways of sarcasm, or, more likely, in the vastly differing Okopnik- and Bergman-ways of writing, not to mention reading. Sorry about my earlier understanding that You definitely do think completely different than any any Tesla-anti-gravity-power-coil-cow ever, not to mention distinctively different than her butcher ... well, "it's" butcher probably, to honour my seventh-and-a-half-grade harbourbitch of a teacher. I'm quite sure that Mr. Bruckheimer does not at all believe in the completely paranoic crap he shows in the majority of his nobrain-movies, too, but he still understands quite well what a sensitive american couchpotato-nightmare consists of and how to scare the average bible-belter's fianc�e enough to help her still feeling comfy when the cinema-gent she brought finally reaches her briefs ... If You prefer to remember me as "this foolish European", well, it's up to You. No need to feel offended, I just liked (and still like) Your ideas of a Nicola-Freak-Tesla sporting afro-hairdo and an Alva-Redneck-Edison, perfectly brilliantine-combed beetween all those tremendous personel You made up around them. (Rasputin, the Blavatsky and the rest of the bunch between their lines.) I might have been a bit too optimistic concerning career-alternatives, but so what, this isn't a coaching-site for changes in one's dayjobs here, and You are better off not believing in anybody elses proposuals anyway, no matter whether zero-point-energy or the writing of simple scripts for lukewarm popcorn-eves were meant, right? Have a ball! G_B Am 22.03.2011 um 12:14 schrieb Ben Okopnik: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 08:26:38AM +0100, Giuseppe Bergman wrote: > > Ben, I like Your very dedicated way of seeing stories in Tesla's hairdo. > > Once bored with "Custom Computing Solutions For Your Business" > > You could become a very sought-after spin-doc or script-wizard for > > Mr Bruckheimer and his peers down there near Los Angeles ... > > BZZZZT! Reading comprehension fail alert! > > Giuseppe - if English is not your primary language, then your > misunderstanding makes sense. (If it _is_ your primary language, then > your third-grade English teacher should be ashamed.) I was answering > David's question of why certain people would choose Tesla as the focus > of their mysticism - I wasn't saying that this is my opinion of him. > The fact that I understand how they think does not mean that I believe > as they do. If you still don't understand that there's a difference > between butchers and cows, or barbers and their customers, or even > employees and employers, perhaps remedial English would be of help? > > Next time, you really should spend some time considering whether your > comprehension ability is up to the task before you jump into a > conversation - _particularly_ if you're going to try sarcasm. Because > otherwise, you're going to look mighty foolish. Just sayin'. > > 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]| 25593|25587|2011-03-22 14:35:40|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|The common practice seems to be no grinding or light grinding. I have no idea about the ABYC re: corrosion stuff that was mentioned. Commercial ships are not (necessarily) ground, at least a lot of the ones I have seen in harbours. Bruce Roberts, whose designs are maybe not the best but who has sold more steel boat designs than everyone else together, and who has more built designs than everyone else together, recommends no or light grinding. BR has sold over 10.000 designs (maybe 20k ?), with maybe some hundreds built. I believe Brent Swain has maybe 40-50 designs built. Most of the BR designs are very heavy, and slow and complex to build. They are known as being very slow, as they are too round, fat and heavy. This may not apply to the bigger, 13-15m plus sizes, but these are a very tiny minority. Like most steel sailboats, including the Brent Swain origami design, all steel sailboats are very, very strong. FWIW, I would just smooth with a 30-40 grit flap wheel with a pneumatic grinder, very fast to do, and leave almost all of it. Electrical if you have no compressor. Brent Swain is probably the best authority. > > Hi everyone ... > > Another welding question: soon I'll have finished welding all the > major inside seams - the inside joins of the cabin and wheelhouse, the > inside welding on the chines and centerline, the inside welding where > the transom meets the hull sides, etc, etc. > > Next I'll be grinding the outside lengths of these seams so that the > plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other, and > then welding the same seams on the outside. > > My question is: after welding the outside seams, should I then grind > the weld right back so that the plates at the joins are again flush > with each other? Would not doing so result in most of the outside > welding behind ground off? Does that matter? Or should I leave a > certain amount of the outside weld in place and not grind it all off? > > Sorry if this is a really basic question! But as I've said before, I'm > a bit of a newbie to the wonderful world of steel boatbuilding, so any > advice would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks! > > Kim. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25594|25570|2011-03-22 14:46:51|Ben Okopnik|Re: energy movement|On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 05:56:20PM +0100, Giuseppe Bergman wrote: > Ben, Carissimo, I still DO love Your way of inventing weird exegeses > to prejudice people about something You dislike, energetic mysticisms > that are, in this case. Aww, such a lovely compliment - thank you! Just call me St. Augustine. :) (I'm going to the courthouse to change my middle name to "Inventor of weird exegeses", right now. Before you change his mind.) > You're right with English not beeing my very first language, but I doubt this to be > the cause for any made-up differences You try to see in our way of looking at other people's ideas. Perhaps you should ease off on that hair tonic; the side effects seem to be pretty awful. (Other than growing hair in your stomach, I mean.) Wouldn't I need to have had a conversation with you previously in order to "make up differences"? Or does time run backwards on your planet? Or - as appears much more likely - are you trying to pre-position yourself as the poor innocent victim? If so, you'll have to bring your own scourge and hair shirt. My schedule is _much_ too full to take on another whipping boy! > The problem might well consist of British and American ways of sarcasm, or, more likely, in the vastly > differing Okopnik- and Bergman-ways of writing, not to mention reading. That latter seems very likely. Ever consider that your views about what I've said might be skewed by that same mechanism? (that's what's known as a HINT.) > Sorry about my earlier understanding that You definitely do think > completely different than any any Tesla-anti-gravity-power-coil-cow ever, not to mention distinctively different than > her butcher ... well, "it's" butcher probably, to honour my seventh-and-a-half-grade harbourbitch > of a teacher. [grin] As a friend of mine is apt to say, 'IHNJ; IJLS "harbourbitch"'. In the British spelling, even. For that alone, Giuseppe, I absolve thee of all thy sins. > I'm quite sure that Mr. Bruckheimer does not at all believe in the completely paranoic crap he shows > in the majority of his nobrain-movies, too, but he still understands quite well what a sensitive > american couchpotato-nightmare consists of and how to scare the average bible-belter's fianc?e enough to help > her still feeling comfy when the cinema-gent she brought finally reaches her briefs ... Ah, a film critic, then. Any relation to Ingrid, or are you tired of people asking that? Sorry, I neither speak that language nor have any idea of who Bruckheimer is (and am not motivated to find out, either.) > If You prefer to remember me as "this foolish European", well, it's up to You. No, no - you can't possibly be "this foolish European". Not after "harbourbitch". > No need to feel offended, I just liked (and still like) Your ideas of a Nicola-Freak-Tesla sporting afro-hairdo > and an Alva-Redneck-Edison, perfectly brilliantine-combed beetween all those tremendous personel You made up around them. (Rasputin, the Blavatsky and the rest of the bunch between their lines.) Thannnk you ver' much. Just put the money in the guitar case. Stacks of unmarked small bills, please. (Although I don't know about the Tesla Afro; you and I will have to share credit for that one. I just said "wild-haired" - that's from a pic I saw of him taken right after one of his demonstrations; you're the one doing the extrapolation from that. Oh, and - no, I'm not in the least offended.) > I might have been a bit too optimistic concerning career-alternatives, but so what, this isn't a coaching-site > for changes in one's dayjobs here, and You are better off not believing in anybody elses proposuals anyway, no matter whether zero-point-energy or the writing of simple scripts for lukewarm popcorn-eves were meant, right? Too right! > Have a ball! With you helping, how could I not? :) 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| 25595|25587|2011-03-22 14:52:55|brentswain38|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|Yes grind the outside welds flush . As long as there is plenty of weld crown on the inside, there should be no problem.If you leave them proud, they create a lot of turbulence and drag, from that point aft. On decks , anything that sticks up is where the paint wears thin. Welds that show, like the bulwark welds and deck to cabin welds, are easy to smooth out a bit with the grinder, before painting, making your boat look a lot spiffier. Welds holding the stringers in tend to show thru may coats of paint, on the outside, It only takes 20 minutes to grind them all flush, a huge improvement in aesthetics, for a few minutes work. To grind them, I lay a large, rigid grinding disk flat on the hull, till they disappear. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi everyone ... > > Another welding question: soon I'll have finished welding all the major inside seams - the inside joins of the cabin and wheelhouse, the inside welding on the chines and centerline, the inside welding where the transom meets the hull sides, etc, etc. > > Next I'll be grinding the outside lengths of these seams so that the plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other, and then welding the same seams on the outside. > > My question is: after welding the outside seams, should I then grind the weld right back so that the plates at the joins are again flush with each other? Would not doing so result in most of the outside welding behind ground off? Does that matter? Or should I leave a certain amount of he outside weld in place and not grind it all off? > > Sorry if this is a really basic question! But as I've said before, I'm a bit of a newbie to the wonderful world of steel boatbuilding, so any advice would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks! > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > he | 25596|25570|2011-03-22 14:57:04|brentswain38|Re: energy movement|I love reading this "Cartoon " section of this site! --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 05:56:20PM +0100, Giuseppe Bergman wrote: > > Ben, Carissimo, I still DO love Your way of inventing weird exegeses > > to prejudice people about something You dislike, energetic mysticisms > > that are, in this case. > > Aww, such a lovely compliment - thank you! Just call me St. Augustine. :) > > (I'm going to the courthouse to change my middle name to "Inventor of > weird exegeses", right now. Before you change his mind.) > > > You're right with English not beeing my very first language, but I doubt this to be > > the cause for any made-up differences You try to see in our way of looking at other people's ideas. > > Perhaps you should ease off on that hair tonic; the side effects seem to > be pretty awful. (Other than growing hair in your stomach, I mean.) > Wouldn't I need to have had a conversation with you previously in order > to "make up differences"? Or does time run backwards on your planet? > > Or - as appears much more likely - are you trying to pre-position > yourself as the poor innocent victim? If so, you'll have to bring your > own scourge and hair shirt. My schedule is _much_ too full to take on > another whipping boy! > > > The problem might well consist of British and American ways of sarcasm, or, more likely, in the vastly > > differing Okopnik- and Bergman-ways of writing, not to mention reading. > > That latter seems very likely. Ever consider that your views about what > I've said might be skewed by that same mechanism? (that's what's known > as a HINT.) > > > Sorry about my earlier understanding that You definitely do think > > completely different than any any Tesla-anti-gravity-power-coil-cow ever, not to mention distinctively different than > > her butcher ... well, "it's" butcher probably, to honour my seventh-and-a-half-grade harbourbitch > > of a teacher. > > [grin] As a friend of mine is apt to say, 'IHNJ; IJLS "harbourbitch"'. > In the British spelling, even. For that alone, Giuseppe, I absolve thee > of all thy sins. > > > I'm quite sure that Mr. Bruckheimer does not at all believe in the completely paranoic crap he shows > > in the majority of his nobrain-movies, too, but he still understands quite well what a sensitive > > american couchpotato-nightmare consists of and how to scare the average bible-belter's fianc?e enough to help > > her still feeling comfy when the cinema-gent she brought finally reaches her briefs ... > > Ah, a film critic, then. Any relation to Ingrid, or are you tired of > people asking that? Sorry, I neither speak that language nor have any > idea of who Bruckheimer is (and am not motivated to find out, either.) > > > If You prefer to remember me as "this foolish European", well, it's up to You. > > No, no - you can't possibly be "this foolish European". Not after > "harbourbitch". > > > No need to feel offended, I just liked (and still like) Your ideas of a Nicola-Freak-Tesla sporting afro-hairdo > > and an Alva-Redneck-Edison, perfectly brilliantine-combed beetween all those tremendous personel You made up around them. (Rasputin, the Blavatsky and the rest of the bunch between their lines.) > > Thannnk you ver' much. Just put the money in the guitar case. Stacks of > unmarked small bills, please. > > (Although I don't know about the Tesla Afro; you and I will have to > share credit for that one. I just said "wild-haired" - that's from a pic > I saw of him taken right after one of his demonstrations; you're the one > doing the extrapolation from that. Oh, and - no, I'm not in the least > offended.) > > > I might have been a bit too optimistic concerning career-alternatives, but so what, this isn't a coaching-site > > for changes in one's dayjobs here, and You are better off not believing in anybody elses proposuals anyway, no matter whether zero-point-energy or the writing of simple scripts for lukewarm popcorn-eves were meant, right? > > Too right! > > > Have a ball! > > With you helping, how could I not? :) > > > 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 > | 25597|25570|2011-03-22 15:07:42|Maxime Camirand|Re: energy movement|How unpleasant. Can you take the flaming off-list? On 22 March 2011 14:46, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 05:56:20PM +0100, Giuseppe Bergman wrote: > > Ben, Carissimo, I still DO love Your way of inventing weird exegeses > > to prejudice people about something You dislike, energetic mysticisms > > that are, in this case. > > Aww, such a lovely compliment - thank you! Just call me St. Augustine. :) > > (I'm going to the courthouse to change my middle name to "Inventor of > weird exegeses", right now. Before you change his mind.) > > > > You're right with English not beeing my very first language, but I doubt > this to be > > the cause for any made-up differences You try to see in our way of > looking at other people's ideas. > > Perhaps you should ease off on that hair tonic; the side effects seem to > be pretty awful. (Other than growing hair in your stomach, I mean.) > Wouldn't I need to have had a conversation with you previously in order > to "make up differences"? Or does time run backwards on your planet? > > Or - as appears much more likely - are you trying to pre-position > yourself as the poor innocent victim? If so, you'll have to bring your > own scourge and hair shirt. My schedule is _much_ too full to take on > another whipping boy! > > > > The problem might well consist of British and American ways of sarcasm, > or, more likely, in the vastly > > differing Okopnik- and Bergman-ways of writing, not to mention reading. > > That latter seems very likely. Ever consider that your views about what > I've said might be skewed by that same mechanism? (that's what's known > as a HINT.) > > > > Sorry about my earlier understanding that You definitely do think > > completely different than any any Tesla-anti-gravity-power-coil-cow ever, > not to mention distinctively different than > > her butcher ... well, "it's" butcher probably, to honour my > seventh-and-a-half-grade harbourbitch > > of a teacher. > > [grin] As a friend of mine is apt to say, 'IHNJ; IJLS "harbourbitch"'. > In the British spelling, even. For that alone, Giuseppe, I absolve thee > of all thy sins. > > > > I'm quite sure that Mr. Bruckheimer does not at all believe in the > completely paranoic crap he shows > > in the majority of his nobrain-movies, too, but he still understands > quite well what a sensitive > > american couchpotato-nightmare consists of and how to scare the average > bible-belter's fianc?e enough to help > > her still feeling comfy when the cinema-gent she brought finally reaches > her briefs ... > > Ah, a film critic, then. Any relation to Ingrid, or are you tired of > people asking that? Sorry, I neither speak that language nor have any > idea of who Bruckheimer is (and am not motivated to find out, either.) > > > > If You prefer to remember me as "this foolish European", well, it's up to > You. > > No, no - you can't possibly be "this foolish European". Not after > "harbourbitch". > > > > No need to feel offended, I just liked (and still like) Your ideas of a > Nicola-Freak-Tesla sporting afro-hairdo > > and an Alva-Redneck-Edison, perfectly brilliantine-combed beetween all > those tremendous personel You made up around them. (Rasputin, the Blavatsky > and the rest of the bunch between their lines.) > > Thannnk you ver' much. Just put the money in the guitar case. Stacks of > unmarked small bills, please. > > (Although I don't know about the Tesla Afro; you and I will have to > share credit for that one. I just said "wild-haired" - that's from a pic > I saw of him taken right after one of his demonstrations; you're the one > doing the extrapolation from that. Oh, and - no, I'm not in the least > offended.) > > > > I might have been a bit too optimistic concerning career-alternatives, > but so what, this isn't a coaching-site > > for changes in one's dayjobs here, and You are better off not believing > in anybody elses proposuals anyway, no matter whether zero-point-energy or > the writing of simple scripts for lukewarm popcorn-eves were meant, right? > > Too right! > > > Have a ball! > > With you helping, how could I not? :) > > > 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] | 25598|25570|2011-03-22 16:14:03|brentswain38|Re: energy movement|Lighten up, and enjoy the comic opera. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Maxime Camirand wrote: > > How unpleasant. Can you take the flaming off-list? > > On 22 March 2011 14:46, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 05:56:20PM +0100, Giuseppe Bergman wrote: > > > Ben, Carissimo, I still DO love Your way of inventing weird exegeses > > > to prejudice people about something You dislike, energetic mysticisms > > > that are, in this case. > > > > Aww, such a lovely compliment - thank you! Just call me St. Augustine. :) > > > > (I'm going to the courthouse to change my middle name to "Inventor of > > weird exegeses", right now. Before you change his mind.) > > > > > > > You're right with English not beeing my very first language, but I doubt > > this to be > > > the cause for any made-up differences You try to see in our way of > > looking at other people's ideas. > > > > Perhaps you should ease off on that hair tonic; the side effects seem to > > be pretty awful. (Other than growing hair in your stomach, I mean.) > > Wouldn't I need to have had a conversation with you previously in order > > to "make up differences"? Or does time run backwards on your planet? > > > > Or - as appears much more likely - are you trying to pre-position > > yourself as the poor innocent victim? If so, you'll have to bring your > > own scourge and hair shirt. My schedule is _much_ too full to take on > > another whipping boy! > > > > > > > The problem might well consist of British and American ways of sarcasm, > > or, more likely, in the vastly > > > differing Okopnik- and Bergman-ways of writing, not to mention reading. > > > > That latter seems very likely. Ever consider that your views about what > > I've said might be skewed by that same mechanism? (that's what's known > > as a HINT.) > > > > > > > Sorry about my earlier understanding that You definitely do think > > > completely different than any any Tesla-anti-gravity-power-coil-cow ever, > > not to mention distinctively different than > > > her butcher ... well, "it's" butcher probably, to honour my > > seventh-and-a-half-grade harbourbitch > > > of a teacher. > > > > [grin] As a friend of mine is apt to say, 'IHNJ; IJLS "harbourbitch"'. > > In the British spelling, even. For that alone, Giuseppe, I absolve thee > > of all thy sins. > > > > > > > I'm quite sure that Mr. Bruckheimer does not at all believe in the > > completely paranoic crap he shows > > > in the majority of his nobrain-movies, too, but he still understands > > quite well what a sensitive > > > american couchpotato-nightmare consists of and how to scare the average > > bible-belter's fianc?e enough to help > > > her still feeling comfy when the cinema-gent she brought finally reaches > > her briefs ... > > > > Ah, a film critic, then. Any relation to Ingrid, or are you tired of > > people asking that? Sorry, I neither speak that language nor have any > > idea of who Bruckheimer is (and am not motivated to find out, either.) > > > > > > > If You prefer to remember me as "this foolish European", well, it's up to > > You. > > > > No, no - you can't possibly be "this foolish European". Not after > > "harbourbitch". > > > > > > > No need to feel offended, I just liked (and still like) Your ideas of a > > Nicola-Freak-Tesla sporting afro-hairdo > > > and an Alva-Redneck-Edison, perfectly brilliantine-combed beetween all > > those tremendous personel You made up around them. (Rasputin, the Blavatsky > > and the rest of the bunch between their lines.) > > > > Thannnk you ver' much. Just put the money in the guitar case. Stacks of > > unmarked small bills, please. > > > > (Although I don't know about the Tesla Afro; you and I will have to > > share credit for that one. I just said "wild-haired" - that's from a pic > > I saw of him taken right after one of his demonstrations; you're the one > > doing the extrapolation from that. Oh, and - no, I'm not in the least > > offended.) > > > > > > > I might have been a bit too optimistic concerning career-alternatives, > > but so what, this isn't a coaching-site > > > for changes in one's dayjobs here, and You are better off not believing > > in anybody elses proposuals anyway, no matter whether zero-point-energy or > > the writing of simple scripts for lukewarm popcorn-eves were meant, right? > > > > Too right! > > > > > Have a ball! > > > > With you helping, how could I not? :) > > > > > > 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] > | 25599|25570|2011-03-22 16:39:54|Ben Okopnik|Re: energy movement|On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 08:13:52PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > Lighten up, and enjoy the comic opera. Eh, what can you do - some people just don't appreciate fine art. :) 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| 25600|25587|2011-03-22 17:11:49|mauro gonzaga|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|Grinding flush has all advantages no disadvantage. Groud flush welds have more resistance because the crown might be a crack starter. Actually a welded test coupons subject to transverse tensile would break at a lower load than a gound flush one. I have experienced on my boat that weld left as welded developed pin hole corrosion which did not appear on the flush ones. This was not only because of the better distribution of paint on a ground surface, because I compared both weld conditions when the paint started to fail and both started corrosion. The reason why is the "temper bead" effect which explains as follows. A weld pass cools off quickly leaving a metallurgical structure coarse grained. A weld bead over an existing one tempers the first. If you grind off the top bead you remove the coarse structures bead which is more prone to intergrsnular corrosion. I am a welding inspector and I always observe the macrography of the weld where the cap weld has visible dendrite structure whilst the bead underneath has a fine one. On the other hand the temper bead technique is recommended when the post weld heat treatment is not possible. mauro --- On Tue, 3/22/11, brentswain38 wrote: From: brentswain38 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Grinding-off outside welds. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 7:52 PM   Yes grind the outside welds flush . As long as there is plenty of weld crown on the inside, there should be no problem.If you leave them proud, they create a lot of turbulence and drag, from that point aft. On decks , anything that sticks up is where the paint wears thin. Welds that show, like the bulwark welds and deck to cabin welds, are easy to smooth out a bit with the grinder, before painting, making your boat look a lot spiffier. Welds holding the stringers in tend to show thru may coats of paint, on the outside, It only takes 20 minutes to grind them all flush, a huge improvement in aesthetics, for a few minutes work. To grind them, I lay a large, rigid grinding disk flat on the hull, till they disappear. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi everyone ... > > Another welding question: soon I'll have finished welding all the major inside seams - the inside joins of the cabin and wheelhouse, the inside welding on the chines and centerline, the inside welding where the transom meets the hull sides, etc, etc. > > Next I'll be grinding the outside lengths of these seams so that the plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other, and then welding the same seams on the outside. > > My question is: after welding the outside seams, should I then grind the weld right back so that the plates at the joins are again flush with each other? Would not doing so result in most of the outside welding behind ground off? Does that matter? Or should I leave a certain amount of he outside weld in place and not grind it all off? > > Sorry if this is a really basic question! But as I've said before, I'm a bit of a newbie to the wonderful world of steel boatbuilding, so any advice would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks! > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > __________________________________________________________ > he [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25601|25601|2011-03-22 17:14:09|wild_explorer|Simplified Keel (rudder) for Origami boat?|In the line with origami boat concept - Simplicity - does anybody know what would be a good prototype for simplified foil shape for the keel/rudder? Means: it could be drawn with 3-4 points/vertical STRAIGHT and 3-4 points/horizontal STRAIGHT or naturally CURVED (for steel) lines? There are bunch of foil's shapes which are not much different from each other, but have different characteristics. http://www.worldofkrauss.com/foils/list?criteria=symmetric It would be hard to repeat it EXACTLY for back-yard boat builder. It would be nice to find the shape which could be done/welded easily with some margin for error without negative effect on performance of the keel/rudder. We are not looking for best (like racers do), but for "good enough". Any ideas? P.S. This is NOT about Brent's design. He did fine job for his boats.| 25602|25587|2011-03-22 17:24:21|Jay K. Jeffries|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|Mauro, You beat me to the reply, thanks! As noted, the cooling weldment puddle cools so that the metallurgy is not a uniform grain; most of this is at the surface of the weld. Due to the variation in the composition of the grains, a multitude of galvanic cells develop which promote intergranular corrosion. By grinding off the weld bead, you remove the majority of the objectional grain and thus limit the development of corrosion. The welds also act as stress localizers and by grinding off the bead you minimize this issue also. Both of these issues can be minimized further by proper pre-heat and post-heat temperature control. R/Jay Ocean Engineer Nuclear SUBSAFE Level 1 QA Inspector Certified ABYC Marine Corrosion Technician From: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com [mailto:origamiboats@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mauro gonzaga Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 5:12 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Grinding-off outside welds. Grinding flush has all advantages no disadvantage. Groud flush welds have more resistance because the crown might be a crack starter. Actually a welded test coupons subject to transverse tensile would break at a lower load than a gound flush one. I have experienced on my boat that weld left as welded developed pin hole corrosion which did not appear on the flush ones. This was not only because of the better distribution of paint on a ground surface, because I compared both weld conditions when the paint started to fail and both started corrosion. The reason why is the "temper bead" effect which explains as follows. A weld pass cools off quickly leaving a metallurgical structure coarse grained. A weld bead over an existing one tempers the first. If you grind off the top bead you remove the coarse structures bead which is more prone to intergrsnular corrosion. I am a welding inspector and I always observe the macrography of the weld where the cap weld has visible dendrite structure whilst the bead underneath has a fine one. On the other hand the temper bead technique is recommended when the post weld heat treatment is not possible. mauro [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25603|25587|2011-03-22 20:04:34|James Pronk|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|Should the seams be gouged out to the root of the weld on the other side as well? James --- On Tue, 3/22/11, brentswain38 wrote: From: brentswain38 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Grinding-off outside welds. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 2:52 PM   Yes grind the outside welds flush . As long as there is plenty of weld crown on the inside, there should be no problem.If you leave them proud, they create a lot of turbulence and drag, from that point aft. On decks , anything that sticks up is where the paint wears thin. Welds that show, like the bulwark welds and deck to cabin welds, are easy to smooth out a bit with the grinder, before painting, making your boat look a lot spiffier. Welds holding the stringers in tend to show thru may coats of paint, on the outside, It only takes 20 minutes to grind them all flush, a huge improvement in aesthetics, for a few minutes work. To grind them, I lay a large, rigid grinding disk flat on the hull, till they disappear. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi everyone ... > > Another welding question: soon I'll have finished welding all the major inside seams - the inside joins of the cabin and wheelhouse, the inside welding on the chines and centerline, the inside welding where the transom meets the hull sides, etc, etc. > > Next I'll be grinding the outside lengths of these seams so that the plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other, and then welding the same seams on the outside. > > My question is: after welding the outside seams, should I then grind the weld right back so that the plates at the joins are again flush with each other? Would not doing so result in most of the outside welding behind ground off? Does that matter? Or should I leave a certain amount of he outside weld in place and not grind it all off? > > Sorry if this is a really basic question! But as I've said before, I'm a bit of a newbie to the wonderful world of steel boatbuilding, so any advice would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks! > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > __________________________________________________________ > he [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25604|25587|2011-03-22 22:43:35|David Frantz|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|I don't know about boats specifically but paint will last longer on a smooth clean surface. Especially if the weld is rough or under cuts. You often see painted structural work rust around the weld first. This probably due to paint thinning on the ridges sort of like is seen on corners. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 22, 2011, at 2:36 PM, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > The common practice seems to be no grinding or light grinding. > I have no idea about the ABYC re: corrosion stuff that was mentioned. > > Commercial ships are not (necessarily) ground, at least a lot of the > ones I have seen in harbours. > > Bruce Roberts, whose designs are maybe not the best but who has sold > more steel boat designs than everyone else together, and who has more > built designs than everyone else together, recommends no or light grinding. > > BR has sold over 10.000 designs (maybe 20k ?), with maybe some hundreds > built. > I believe Brent Swain has maybe 40-50 designs built. > > Most of the BR designs are very heavy, and slow and complex to build. > They are known as being very slow, as they are too round, fat and heavy. > This may not apply to the bigger, 13-15m plus sizes, but these are a > very tiny minority. > > Like most steel sailboats, including the Brent Swain origami design, all > steel sailboats are very, very strong. > > FWIW, I would just smooth with a 30-40 grit flap wheel with a pneumatic > grinder, very fast to do, and leave almost all of it. > Electrical if you have no compressor. > > Brent Swain is probably the best authority. > >> >> Hi everyone ... >> >> Another welding question: soon I'll have finished welding all the >> major inside seams - the inside joins of the cabin and wheelhouse, the >> inside welding on the chines and centerline, the inside welding where >> the transom meets the hull sides, etc, etc. >> >> Next I'll be grinding the outside lengths of these seams so that the >> plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other, and >> then welding the same seams on the outside. >> >> My question is: after welding the outside seams, should I then grind >> the weld right back so that the plates at the joins are again flush >> with each other? Would not doing so result in most of the outside >> welding behind ground off? Does that matter? Or should I leave a >> certain amount of the outside weld in place and not grind it all off? >> >> Sorry if this is a really basic question! But as I've said before, I'm >> a bit of a newbie to the wonderful world of steel boatbuilding, so any >> advice would be greatly appreciated. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Kim. >> > > > > [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 > > > | 25605|25587|2011-03-23 07:07:18|boatwayupnorth|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|Hi Kim, If I recall correctly, Wynand Nortje recommends on his website (http://5psi.net/?q=node/1)to weld from the inside, grind a grove into the weld from the outside, fill the grove from the outside and then grind it flush with the hull plates so that the whole hull appears seemless. Wynands website is down for the moment due to trouble with the server, but is hopefully up and running again soon. I find it a well of very usefull information. Good luck! Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi everyone ... > > Another welding question: soon I'll have finished welding all the major inside seams - the inside joins of the cabin and wheelhouse, the inside welding on the chines and centerline, the inside welding where the transom meets the hull sides, etc, etc. > > Next I'll be grinding the outside lengths of these seams so that the plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other, and then welding the same seams on the outside. > > My question is: after welding the outside seams, should I then grind the weld right back so that the plates at the joins are again flush with each other? Would not doing so result in most of the outside welding behind ground off? Does that matter? Or should I leave a certain amount of the outside weld in place and not grind it all off? > > Sorry if this is a really basic question! But as I've said before, I'm a bit of a newbie to the wonderful world of steel boatbuilding, so any advice would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks! > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > | 25606|25606|2011-03-23 11:21:15|SHANE ROTHWELL|Energy movement|Delighted that yet more people are seeing through "he who is a legend in his own mind".   And how could his various "proclamations" be seen as anthing other than outright  fabrications? Or would the correct term be outright fraud?????   Ever wonder why they coined the term "seppo"?     Re: energy movement Posted by: "brentswain38" brentswain38@...   brentswain38 Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:57 am (PDT) I love reading this "Cartoon " section of this site! --- In origamiboats@ yahoogroups. com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 05:56:20PM +0100, Giuseppe Bergman wrote: > > Ben, Carissimo, I still DO love Your way of inventing weird exegeses > > to prejudice people about something You dislike, energetic mysticisms > > that are, in this case. > > Aww, such a lovely compliment - thank you! Just call me St. Augustine. :) > > (I'm going to the courthouse to change my middle name to "Inventor of > weird exegeses", right now. Before you change his mind.) > > > You're right with English not beeing my very first language, but I doubt this >to be > > the cause for any made-up differences You try to see in our way of looking at >other people's ideas. > > Perhaps you should ease off on that hair tonic; the side effects seem to > be pretty awful. (Other than growing hair in your stomach, I mean.) > Wouldn't I need to have had a conversation with you previously in order > to "make up differences" ? Or does time run backwards on your planet? > > Or - as appears much more likely - are you trying to pre-position > yourself as the poor innocent victim? If so, you'll have to bring your > own scourge and hair shirt. My schedule is _much_ too full to take on > another whipping boy! > > > The problem might well consist of British and American ways of sarcasm, or, >more likely, in the vastly > > > differing Okopnik- and Bergman-ways of writing, not to mention reading. > > That latter seems very likely. Ever consider that your views about what > I've said might be skewed by that same mechanism? (that's what's known > as a HINT.) > > > Sorry about my earlier understanding that You definitely do think > > completely different than any any Tesla-anti-gravity- power-coil- cow ever, >not to mention distinctively different than > > her butcher ... well, "it's" butcher probably, to honour my seventh-and- >a-half-grade harbourbitch > > of a teacher. > > [grin] As a friend of mine is apt to say, 'IHNJ; IJLS "harbourbitch" '. > In the British spelling, even. For that alone, Giuseppe, I absolve thee > of all thy sins. > > > I'm quite sure that Mr. Bruckheimer does not at all believe in the completely >paranoic crap he shows > > > in the majority of his nobrain-movies, too, but he still understands quite >well what a sensitive > > > american couchpotato- nightmare consists of and how to scare the average >bible-belter' s fianc?e enough to help > > > her still feeling comfy when the cinema-gent she brought finally reaches her >briefs ... > > Ah, a film critic, then. Any relation to Ingrid, or are you tired of > people asking that? Sorry, I neither speak that language nor have any > idea of who Bruckheimer is (and am not motivated to find out, either.) > > > If You prefer to remember me as "this foolish European", well, it's up to >You. > > No, no - you can't possibly be "this foolish European". Not after > "harbourbitch" . > > > No need to feel offended, I just liked (and still like) Your ideas of a >Nicola-Freak- Tesla sporting afro-hairdo > > and an Alva-Redneck- Edison, perfectly brilliantine- combed beetween all >those tremendous personel You made up around them. (Rasputin, the Blavatsky and >the rest of the bunch between their lines.) > > Thannnk you ver' much. Just put the money in the guitar case. Stacks of > unmarked small bills, please. > > (Although I don't know about the Tesla Afro; you and I will have to > share credit for that one. I just said "wild-haired" - that's from a pic > I saw of him taken right after one of his demonstrations; you're the one > doing the extrapolation from that. Oh, and - no, I'm not in the least > offended.) > > > I might have been a bit too optimistic concerning career-alternatives , but >so what, this isn't a coaching-site > > > for changes in one's dayjobs here, and You are better off not believing in >anybody elses proposuals anyway, no matter whether zero-point-energy or the >writing of simple scripts for lukewarm popcorn-eves were meant, right? > > Too right! > > > Have a ball! > > With you helping, how could I not? :) > > > 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 > | 25607|25607|2011-03-23 17:28:38|Denis Buggy|Fw: [origamiboats] Re: energy movement|> while OKOPNIK was a >>> wild-haired, flamboyant weirdo from Furrin Parts (where people like >>> Madame Blavatsky and Rasputin came from, or some place near there) >> >>> 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 >>> >> ben HOW DOES IT READ ?? IS IT ACCURATE denis >> >> >> [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 >> >> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > | 25608|25601|2011-03-23 18:38:38|brentswain38|Re: Simplified Keel (rudder) for Origami boat?|I use a fairly large radius leading edge to, prevent stalling. Some say 6 inch pipe is too large on my single keeler, but they look at it as simply a vertical 6 inch pipe. With the slope of the leading edge , one should look at it as cut horizontally, in which case it is an elipse. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > In the line with origami boat concept - Simplicity - does anybody know what would be a good prototype for simplified foil shape for the keel/rudder? > > Means: it could be drawn with 3-4 points/vertical STRAIGHT and 3-4 points/horizontal STRAIGHT or naturally CURVED (for steel) lines? > > There are bunch of foil's shapes which are not much different from each other, but have different characteristics. > > http://www.worldofkrauss.com/foils/list?criteria=symmetric > > It would be hard to repeat it EXACTLY for back-yard boat builder. It would be nice to find the shape which could be done/welded easily with some margin for error without negative effect on performance of the keel/rudder. > > We are not looking for best (like racers do), but for "good enough". Any ideas? > > P.S. This is NOT about Brent's design. He did fine job for his boats. > | 25609|25587|2011-03-23 18:43:14|brentswain38|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|Yes. Put the inside weld on, then goudge the outside with a 1/8th inch wheel, until you hit solid metal, and don't see any cracks or slag. Then fill the outside with 6011. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > Should the seams be gouged out to the root of the weld on the other side as well? > James > > --- On Tue, 3/22/11, brentswain38 wrote: > > > From: brentswain38 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Grinding-off outside welds. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 2:52 PM > > >   > > > > Yes grind the outside welds flush . As long as there is plenty of weld crown on the inside, there should be no problem.If you leave them proud, they create a lot of turbulence and drag, from that point aft. > On decks , anything that sticks up is where the paint wears thin. > Welds that show, like the bulwark welds and deck to cabin welds, are easy to smooth out a bit with the grinder, before painting, making your boat look a lot spiffier. > Welds holding the stringers in tend to show thru may coats of paint, on the outside, It only takes 20 minutes to grind them all flush, a huge improvement in aesthetics, for a few minutes work. To grind them, I lay a large, rigid grinding disk flat on the hull, till they disappear. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > Hi everyone ... > > > > Another welding question: soon I'll have finished welding all the major inside seams - the inside joins of the cabin and wheelhouse, the inside welding on the chines and centerline, the inside welding where the transom meets the hull sides, etc, etc. > > > > Next I'll be grinding the outside lengths of these seams so that the plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other, and then welding the same seams on the outside. > > > > My question is: after welding the outside seams, should I then grind the weld right back so that the plates at the joins are again flush with each other? Would not doing so result in most of the outside welding behind ground off? Does that matter? Or should I leave a certain amount of he outside weld in place and not grind it all off? > > > > Sorry if this is a really basic question! But as I've said before, I'm a bit of a newbie to the wonderful world of steel boatbuilding, so any advice would be greatly appreciated. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > __________________________________________________________ > > > he > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25610|25601|2011-03-23 18:48:08|brentswain38|Re: Simplified Keel (rudder) for Origami boat?|I once read an article on how racing boats have been improving performance, by going for a more rounded leading edge to their keels. Sharp leading edges stall when going to windward in rough water, and when getting knocked around, going down wind in rough water, resulting in a huge increase in drag. A bigger radius on the leading edges had drastically reduced this drag, resulting in major improvements in boat speed. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I use a fairly large radius leading edge to, prevent stalling. Some say 6 inch pipe is too large on my single keeler, but they look at it as simply a vertical 6 inch pipe. With the slope of the leading edge , one should look at it as cut horizontally, in which case it is an elipse. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > In the line with origami boat concept - Simplicity - does anybody know what would be a good prototype for simplified foil shape for the keel/rudder? > > > > Means: it could be drawn with 3-4 points/vertical STRAIGHT and 3-4 points/horizontal STRAIGHT or naturally CURVED (for steel) lines? > > > > There are bunch of foil's shapes which are not much different from each other, but have different characteristics. > > > > http://www.worldofkrauss.com/foils/list?criteria=symmetric > > > > It would be hard to repeat it EXACTLY for back-yard boat builder. It would be nice to find the shape which could be done/welded easily with some margin for error without negative effect on performance of the keel/rudder. > > > > We are not looking for best (like racers do), but for "good enough". Any ideas? > > > > P.S. This is NOT about Brent's design. He did fine job for his boats. > > > | 25611|25587|2011-03-23 19:47:34|Gary H. Lucas|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|On a percentage basis of plans sold to boats built, I’d bet Brent wins hands down. I once got a study plan from Bruce Roberts and realized I would be years just framing and plating the hull! That is the reason that so many fail to complete them. A BS boat sailing slowly around the world will complete the journey before you complete the hull of a Bruce Roberts boat. Gary H. Lucas From: CNC 6-axis Designs Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 2:36 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Grinding-off outside welds. The common practice seems to be no grinding or light grinding. I have no idea about the ABYC re: corrosion stuff that was mentioned. Commercial ships are not (necessarily) ground, at least a lot of the ones I have seen in harbours. Bruce Roberts, whose designs are maybe not the best but who has sold more steel boat designs than everyone else together, and who has more built designs than everyone else together, recommends no or light grinding. BR has sold over 10.000 designs (maybe 20k ?), with maybe some hundreds built. I believe Brent Swain has maybe 40-50 designs built. Most of the BR designs are very heavy, and slow and complex to build. They are known as being very slow, as they are too round, fat and heavy. This may not apply to the bigger, 13-15m plus sizes, but these are a very tiny minority. Like most steel sailboats, including the Brent Swain origami design, all steel sailboats are very, very strong. FWIW, I would just smooth with a 30-40 grit flap wheel with a pneumatic grinder, very fast to do, and leave almost all of it. Electrical if you have no compressor. Brent Swain is probably the best authority. > > Hi everyone ... > > Another welding question: soon I'll have finished welding all the > major inside seams - the inside joins of the cabin and wheelhouse, the > inside welding on the chines and centerline, the inside welding where > the transom meets the hull sides, etc, etc. > > Next I'll be grinding the outside lengths of these seams so that the > plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other, and > then welding the same seams on the outside. > > My question is: after welding the outside seams, should I then grind > the weld right back so that the plates at the joins are again flush > with each other? Would not doing so result in most of the outside > welding behind ground off? Does that matter? Or should I leave a > certain amount of the outside weld in place and not grind it all off? > > Sorry if this is a really basic question! But as I've said before, I'm > a bit of a newbie to the wonderful world of steel boatbuilding, so any > advice would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks! > > Kim. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25612|25612|2011-03-23 19:59:49|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|lewmar 40 winches|if I quit the idea of a longer boom, running backstays and blocks, I will need winches for a bermudian rig I just found two lewmar #40 2 speeds winches, but chrome is of, asking price $300.00 for both, does this sound like a good deal? winches seem hard to find used, here in Quebec. Martin.| 25613|25612|2011-03-23 20:04:19|gschnell@shaw.ca|Re: lewmar 40 winches|I'd definitely "go for it". Sounds like a deal....just check them over carefully. That is a very good price. 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: mdemers2005@... Sender: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:59:39 To: Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] lewmar 40 winches if I quit the idea of a longer boom, running backstays and blocks, I will need winches for a bermudian rig I just found two lewmar #40 2 speeds winches, but chrome is of, asking price $300.00 for both, does this sound like a good deal? winches seem hard to find used, here in Quebec. Martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25614|25587|2011-03-23 20:05:38|Gary H. Lucas|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|Anybody here ever use an arcair torch? About 20 years ago a customer asked me to fix some cracks in the 8 foot diameter x 1-1/2” wheel on a pavement cutting machine. There were cracks 2 feet long going all the way through! I told him I would need another welder to get it all done in one day. He brought in a pipe liner, a guy who welds gas pipe all day. When the guy looked at the cracks he said we’d be days just gouging them out with a grinder! I pulled out an arcair torch, which he had never seen before. It looks like an over size stick welding stinger, with an air connection added, and you use a carbon rod. I proceeded to gouge out the 2 foot long welds on each side to depth of 3/4” in about 15 minutes each side. He was really impressed, saying that the groove profile was perfect for welding with no hand grinding. The noise it makes is unbelievably LOUD! You have to wear ear muffs. If you want to remove welds this is the tool to use. Some years ago my younger brother twisted a backhoe bucket and was trying to take it apart with a cutting torch. I was laughing at him and he said “Okay smart guy, what would you do?” I pulled out the arcair that he didn’t know we had, and proceeded to disassemble the bucket like it had never been welded. Great little tool, dates back to Edison I’ll bet! Gary H. Lucas From: boatwayupnorth Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 7:07 AM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Grinding-off outside welds. Hi Kim, If I recall correctly, Wynand Nortje recommends on his website (http://5psi.net/?q=node/1)to weld from the inside, grind a grove into the weld from the outside, fill the grove from the outside and then grind it flush with the hull plates so that the whole hull appears seemless. Wynands website is down for the moment due to trouble with the server, but is hopefully up and running again soon. I find it a well of very usefull information. Good luck! Walter --- In mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi everyone ... > > Another welding question: soon I'll have finished welding all the major inside seams - the inside joins of the cabin and wheelhouse, the inside welding on the chines and centerline, the inside welding where the transom meets the hull sides, etc, etc. > > Next I'll be grinding the outside lengths of these seams so that the plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other, and then welding the same seams on the outside. > > My question is: after welding the outside seams, should I then grind the weld right back so that the plates at the joins are again flush with each other? Would not doing so result in most of the outside welding behind ground off? Does that matter? Or should I leave a certain amount of the outside weld in place and not grind it all off? > > Sorry if this is a really basic question! But as I've said before, I'm a bit of a newbie to the wonderful world of steel boatbuilding, so any advice would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks! > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > __________________________________________________________ > Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25615|25587|2011-03-23 20:50:54|Ben Okopnik|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 08:05:35PM -0400, Gary H. Lucas wrote: > > Anybody here ever use an arcair torch? The welding class that I took in Jacksonville is where the Maxwell Coffee company sent their people to get trained, and for whatever reason, one of the requirements for them was learning to use an ArcAir. You're right - that's a pretty flippin' amazing gadget. Loud as hell when it gets going, but I don't know of anything else that compares with it. > If you want to remove welds this is the tool to use. Some years ago > my younger brother twisted a backhoe bucket and was trying to take it > apart with a cutting torch. I was laughing at him and he said “Okay > smart guy, what would you do?” I pulled out the arcair that he didn’t > know we had, and proceeded to disassemble the bucket like it had never > been welded. Great little tool, dates back to Edison I’ll bet! Another tool that I was really impressed with was a wash tip on a gas rig. That thing washed away welds like they'd been made out of soft soap. Really incredible. 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| 25616|25601|2011-03-23 20:57:52|wild_explorer|Re: Simplified Keel (rudder) for Origami boat?|So... At this case, we should look for blunt-nose foil with large stall angle, simple pattern and reasonable drag. Not easy... --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I once read an article on how racing boats have been improving performance, by going for a more rounded leading edge to their keels. Sharp leading edges stall when going to windward in rough water, and when getting knocked around, going down wind in rough water, resulting in a huge increase in drag. > A bigger radius on the leading edges had drastically reduced this drag, resulting in major improvements in boat speed. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I use a fairly large radius leading edge to, prevent stalling. Some say 6 inch pipe is too large on my single keeler, but they look at it as simply a vertical 6 inch pipe. With the slope of the leading edge , one should look at it as cut horizontally, in which case it is an elipse. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > In the line with origami boat concept - Simplicity - does anybody know what would be a good prototype for simplified foil shape for the keel/rudder? > > > > > > Means: it could be drawn with 3-4 points/vertical STRAIGHT and 3-4 points/horizontal STRAIGHT or naturally CURVED (for steel) lines? > > > > > > There are bunch of foil's shapes which are not much different from each other, but have different characteristics. > > > > > > http://www.worldofkrauss.com/foils/list?criteria=symmetric > > > > > > It would be hard to repeat it EXACTLY for back-yard boat builder. It would be nice to find the shape which could be done/welded easily with some margin for error without negative effect on performance of the keel/rudder. > > > > > > We are not looking for best (like racers do), but for "good enough". Any ideas? > > > > > > P.S. This is NOT about Brent's design. He did fine job for his boats. > > > > > > | 25617|25607|2011-03-23 21:21:49|Ben Okopnik|Re: Fw: [origamiboats] Re: energy movement|On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 09:28:33PM -0000, Denis Buggy wrote: > > ben HOW DOES IT READ ?? IS IT ACCURATE denis Denis... exchanging quips with Giuseppe was amusing and pleasant; watching you struggle to produce anything funny is... embarrassing. Rather like watching a nominal adult who still hasn't mastered potty training. Because I'm still able to scrape up some degree of sympathy for you, I'm going to ask you to stop embarassing yourself in public. In order to help you, I won't be responding to you in this thread any further. 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| 25618|25587|2011-03-24 00:46:20|Aaron Williams|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|Gary Air arc or carbon arc is a great tool if one knows how to use it and if not it can make one hell of a mess. I have used 1/2" down to 3/16".  I would think it to be extremely unnecessary for small sailboats building. Ships are a different game.  Aaron   ________________________________ From: Gary H. Lucas To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 4:05:35 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Grinding-off outside welds.   Anybody here ever use an arcair torch? About 20 years ago a customer asked me to fix some cracks in the 8 foot diameter x 1-1/2” wheel on a pavement cutting machine. There were cracks 2 feet long going all the way through! I told him I would need another welder to get it all done in one day. He brought in a pipe liner, a guy who welds gas pipe all day. When the guy looked at the cracks he said we’d be days just gouging them out with a grinder! I pulled out an arcair torch, which he had never seen before. It looks like an over size stick welding stinger, with an air connection added, and you use a carbon rod. I proceeded to gouge out the 2 foot long welds on each side to depth of 3/4” in about 15 minutes each side. He was really impressed, saying that the groove profile was perfect for welding with no hand grinding. The noise it makes is unbelievably LOUD! You have to wear ear muffs. If you want to remove welds this is the tool to use. Some years ago my younger brother twisted a backhoe bucket and was trying to take it apart with a cutting torch. I was laughing at him and he said “Okay smart guy, what would you do?” I pulled out the arcair that he didn’t know we had, and proceeded to disassemble the bucket like it had never been welded. Great little tool, dates back to Edison I’ll bet! Gary H. Lucas From: boatwayupnorth Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 7:07 AM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Grinding-off outside welds. Hi Kim, If I recall correctly, Wynand Nortje recommends on his website (http://5psi.net/?q=node/1)to weld from the inside, grind a grove into the weld from the outside, fill the grove from the outside and then grind it flush with the hull plates so that the whole hull appears seemless. Wynands website is down for the moment due to trouble with the server, but is hopefully up and running again soon. I find it a well of very usefull information. Good luck! Walter --- In mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi everyone ... > > Another welding question: soon I'll have finished welding all the major inside >seams - the inside joins of the cabin and wheelhouse, the inside welding on the >chines and centerline, the inside welding where the transom meets the hull >sides, etc, etc. > > Next I'll be grinding the outside lengths of these seams so that the plates at >the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other, and then welding the same >seams on the outside. > > My question is: after welding the outside seams, should I then grind the weld >right back so that the plates at the joins are again flush with each other? >Would not doing so result in most of the outside welding behind ground off? Does >that matter? Or should I leave a certain amount of the outside weld in place and >not grind it all off? > > Sorry if this is a really basic question! But as I've said before, I'm a bit of >a newbie to the wonderful world of steel boatbuilding, so any advice would be >greatly appreciated. > > Thanks! > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > __________________________________________________________ > Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25619|25587|2011-03-24 03:34:42|Kim|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|Many thanks for all your responses (Brent, John, Jay, Hannu, Mauro, David and Walter). Very much appreciated! The very helpful and informative advice so generously given by all you guys here certainly takes a lot of the guesswork out of building one of Brent's designs! :-) I think I've got pretty good, thick welds on the major interior seams. Most of them have almost come through to the other side of the 3mm (1/8") plate, so penetration seems OK. Following the general consensus of your replies, for the outside welding I'll follow this procedure: 1) Grind the outside lengths of the seams so that the plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other. 2) Using a thin cut-off wheel, gouge out the seam on the outside a bit, until the wheel touches the interior weld. 3) Fully weld the outside seams. 4) Completely grind off all excess weld deposits on the outside of the seams, so that the plates at the joins are flush with each other once again. This should provide a smooth, slightly-rounded, no-ridge surface for the paint, and (as some of you have indicated) should produce a stronger, longer-lasting join. As a bonus, it will look so much better! :-) Thanks again! Cheers ... Kim. ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi everyone ... > > Another welding question: soon I'll have finished welding all the major inside seams - the inside joins of the cabin and wheelhouse, the inside welding on the chines and centerline, the inside welding where the transom meets the hull sides, etc, etc. > > Next I'll be grinding the outside lengths of these seams so that the plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other, and then welding the same seams on the outside. > > My question is: after welding the outside seams, should I then grind the weld right back so that the plates at the joins are again flush with each other? Would not doing so result in most of the outside welding behind ground off? Does that matter? Or should I leave a certain amount of the outside weld in place and not grind it all off? > > Sorry if this is a really basic question! But as I've said before, I'm a bit of a newbie to the wonderful world of steel boatbuilding, so any advice would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks! > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ | 25620|25612|2011-03-24 15:59:57|brentswain38|Re: lewmar 40 winches|Sounds like a great deal. Go for it. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > if I quit the idea of a longer boom, running backstays and blocks, I will need winches for a bermudian rig > I just found two lewmar #40 2 speeds winches, but chrome is of, asking price $300.00 for both, does this sound like a good deal? > winches seem hard to find used, here in Quebec. > > Martin. > | 25621|25601|2011-03-24 16:03:58|brentswain38|Re: Simplified Keel (rudder) for Origami boat?|Farly blunt . A 6 inch pipe, at the angle of my single keel is the radius of a 3 inch pipe run vertically, when cut horizontally. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > So... At this case, we should look for blunt-nose foil with large stall angle, simple pattern and reasonable drag. Not easy... > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I once read an article on how racing boats have been improving performance, by going for a more rounded leading edge to their keels. Sharp leading edges stall when going to windward in rough water, and when getting knocked around, going down wind in rough water, resulting in a huge increase in drag. > > A bigger radius on the leading edges had drastically reduced this drag, resulting in major improvements in boat speed. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I use a fairly large radius leading edge to, prevent stalling. Some say 6 inch pipe is too large on my single keeler, but they look at it as simply a vertical 6 inch pipe. With the slope of the leading edge , one should look at it as cut horizontally, in which case it is an elipse. > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > > > In the line with origami boat concept - Simplicity - does anybody know what would be a good prototype for simplified foil shape for the keel/rudder? > > > > > > > > Means: it could be drawn with 3-4 points/vertical STRAIGHT and 3-4 points/horizontal STRAIGHT or naturally CURVED (for steel) lines? > > > > > > > > There are bunch of foil's shapes which are not much different from each other, but have different characteristics. > > > > > > > > http://www.worldofkrauss.com/foils/list?criteria=symmetric > > > > > > > > It would be hard to repeat it EXACTLY for back-yard boat builder. It would be nice to find the shape which could be done/welded easily with some margin for error without negative effect on performance of the keel/rudder. > > > > > > > > We are not looking for best (like racers do), but for "good enough". Any ideas? > > > > > > > > P.S. This is NOT about Brent's design. He did fine job for his boats. > > > > > > > > > > | 25622|25587|2011-03-24 16:07:49|brentswain38|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|Be careful with the rounding off of chines and transom corners. On the first origami boat I built, I told the owner to round out the transom welds a bit . He ground so much off, that the plate was paper thin, by the time he was finished. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Many thanks for all your responses (Brent, John, Jay, Hannu, Mauro, David and Walter). Very much appreciated! > > The very helpful and informative advice so generously given by all you guys here certainly takes a lot of the guesswork out of building one of Brent's designs! :-) > > I think I've got pretty good, thick welds on the major interior seams. Most of them have almost come through to the other side of the 3mm (1/8") plate, so penetration seems OK. Following the general consensus of your replies, for the outside welding I'll follow this procedure: > > 1) Grind the outside lengths of the seams so that the plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other. > > 2) Using a thin cut-off wheel, gouge out the seam on the outside a bit, until the wheel touches the interior weld. > > 3) Fully weld the outside seams. > > 4) Completely grind off all excess weld deposits on the outside of the seams, so that the plates at the joins are flush with each other once again. > > This should provide a smooth, slightly-rounded, no-ridge surface for the paint, and (as some of you have indicated) should produce a stronger, longer-lasting join. As a bonus, it will look so much better! :-) > > Thanks again! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > ______________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > Hi everyone ... > > > > Another welding question: soon I'll have finished welding all the major inside seams - the inside joins of the cabin and wheelhouse, the inside welding on the chines and centerline, the inside welding where the transom meets the hull sides, etc, etc. > > > > Next I'll be grinding the outside lengths of these seams so that the plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other, and then welding the same seams on the outside. > > > > My question is: after welding the outside seams, should I then grind the weld right back so that the plates at the joins are again flush with each other? Would not doing so result in most of the outside welding behind ground off? Does that matter? Or should I leave a certain amount of the outside weld in place and not grind it all off? > > > > Sorry if this is a really basic question! But as I've said before, I'm a bit of a newbie to the wonderful world of steel boatbuilding, so any advice would be greatly appreciated. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > ______________________________________________________________ > | 25623|25612|2011-03-24 17:14:22|mkriley48|Re: lewmar 40 winches|are you racing or cruising? 99% of the time I never got out the winch handle,just luff up,adjust and fall off, single speed winches are ok just make a longer handle for low gear. I like the old south coats winches with the slot loading handle, No bearings and a complete rebuild kit was only 15 bucks. I have seen these function for decades with any maintenance what so ever. mike --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > if I quit the idea of a longer boom, running backstays and blocks, I will need winches for a bermudian rig > I just found two lewmar #40 2 speeds winches, but chrome is of, asking price $300.00 for both, does this sound like a good deal? > winches seem hard to find used, here in Quebec. > > Martin. > | 25624|25587|2011-03-24 18:45:29|Kim|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|OK. Thanks Brent! Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Be careful with the rounding off of chines and transom corners. On the first origami boat I built, I told the owner to round out the transom welds a bit . He ground so much off, that the plate was paper thin, by the time he was finished. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > Many thanks for all your responses (Brent, John, Jay, Hannu, Mauro, David and Walter). Very much appreciated! > > > > The very helpful and informative advice so generously given by all you guys here certainly takes a lot of the guesswork out of building one of Brent's designs! :-) > > > > I think I've got pretty good, thick welds on the major interior seams. Most of them have almost come through to the other side of the 3mm (1/8") plate, so penetration seems OK. Following the general consensus of your replies, for the outside welding I'll follow this procedure: > > > > 1) Grind the outside lengths of the seams so that the plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other. > > > > 2) Using a thin cut-off wheel, gouge out the seam on the outside a bit, until the wheel touches the interior weld. > > > > 3) Fully weld the outside seams. > > > > 4) Completely grind off all excess weld deposits on the outside of the seams, so that the plates at the joins are flush with each other once again. > > > > This should provide a smooth, slightly-rounded, no-ridge surface for the paint, and (as some of you have indicated) should produce a stronger, longer-lasting join. As a bonus, it will look so much better! :-) > > > > Thanks again! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. _____________________________________ | 25625|25587|2011-03-24 20:37:23|James Pronk|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|One of the things that I like to use when grinding welds flush is a cup wheel on my 7 inch grinder. I have seen them for 4.5" and 5" grinders as well and I think they would be easer to handle. With a cup wheel you just put the wheel down flat on the surface that you are grinding and it will give you a very nice finish with less chance of gouging out the materal James --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Kim wrote: From: Kim Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Grinding-off outside welds. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 3:34 AM   Many thanks for all your responses (Brent, John, Jay, Hannu, Mauro, David and Walter). Very much appreciated! The very helpful and informative advice so generously given by all you guys here certainly takes a lot of the guesswork out of building one of Brent's designs! :-) I think I've got pretty good, thick welds on the major interior seams. Most of them have almost come through to the other side of the 3mm (1/8") plate, so penetration seems OK. Following the general consensus of your replies, for the outside welding I'll follow this procedure: 1) Grind the outside lengths of the seams so that the plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other. 2) Using a thin cut-off wheel, gouge out the seam on the outside a bit, until the wheel touches the interior weld. 3) Fully weld the outside seams. 4) Completely grind off all excess weld deposits on the outside of the seams, so that the plates at the joins are flush with each other once again. This should provide a smooth, slightly-rounded, no-ridge surface for the paint, and (as some of you have indicated) should produce a stronger, longer-lasting join. As a bonus, it will look so much better! :-) Thanks again! Cheers ... Kim. __________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi everyone ... > > Another welding question: soon I'll have finished welding all the major inside seams - the inside joins of the cabin and wheelhouse, the inside welding on the chines and centerline, the inside welding where the transom meets the hull sides, etc, etc. > > Next I'll be grinding the outside lengths of these seams so that the plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other, and then welding the same seams on the outside. > > My question is: after welding the outside seams, should I then grind the weld right back so that the plates at the joins are again flush with each other? Would not doing so result in most of the outside welding behind ground off? Does that matter? Or should I leave a certain amount of the outside weld in place and not grind it all off? > > Sorry if this is a really basic question! But as I've said before, I'm a bit of a newbie to the wonderful world of steel boatbuilding, so any advice would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks! > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > __________________________________________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25626|25587|2011-03-24 21:46:59|Kim|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|Excellent suggestion, James. Curiously, I haven't seen any cup wheels recently in the trade shops around here; but they must be there, and I'll try to get some. They would certainly give a better finish. Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > One of the things that I like to use when grinding welds flush is a cup wheel on my 7 inch grinder. I have seen them for 4.5" and 5" grinders as well and I think they would be easer to handle. With a cup wheel you just put the wheel down flat on the surface that you are grinding and it will give you a very nice finish with less chance of gouging out the materal > James > --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Kim wrote: > > From: Kim > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Grinding-off outside welds. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 3:34 AM > > Many thanks for all your responses (Brent, John, Jay, Hannu, Mauro, David and Walter). Very much appreciated! > > The very helpful and informative advice so generously given by all you guys here certainly takes a lot of the guesswork out of building one of Brent's designs! :-) > > I think I've got pretty good, thick welds on the major interior seams. Most of them have almost come through to the other side of the 3mm (1/8") plate, so penetration seems OK. Following the general consensus of your replies, for the outside welding I'll follow this procedure: > > 1) Grind the outside lengths of the seams so that the plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other. > > 2) Using a thin cut-off wheel, gouge out the seam on the outside a bit, until the wheel touches the interior weld. > > 3) Fully weld the outside seams. > > 4) Completely grind off all excess weld deposits on the outside of the seams, so that the plates at the joins are flush with each other once again. > > This should provide a smooth, slightly-rounded, no-ridge surface for the paint, and (as some of you have indicated) should produce a stronger, longer-lasting join. As a bonus, it will look so much better! :-) > > Thanks again! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > __________________________________________________________ | 25627|25546|2011-03-25 08:20:10|scott|Re: Solar Panels|We haven't mounted ours yet but we have two 205 watt panels that are going to be mounted to a hard dodger. They will connected to a 60 amp mppt morningstar charge controller. Eventually we will have a total of about 800 watts capacity on the boat.. 410 on the doger and another 400 or so on a bimini. scott --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "martin" wrote: > > Ben could you describe your panels for me. I've started to look at the possiblities for Prarie Maid and would appreciate anyones information regarding what has worked well for them and how they are mounted and rigged to the boats electrical system. I know Costa Vida had one I beleive it to be about 85w.mounted between their backstays on a board of some kind. Thanks Martin... > | 25628|25546|2011-03-25 08:38:24|scott|Re: Solar Panels|The pros and cons are more about shading than losses in wires. if you had no shade then wiring the panels in series to up the voltage to 70 to 100 volts and then into a mppt controller would be the most efficient. however if you shade one of those panels it will shut down current from the entire string of panels. So we wire them in parallel to the mppt controller so that if one panel is shaded the other panels continue to output power to the controller. I recently saw some 70+ volt panels for a great deal.. These would be awesome to run in parallel to a mppt controller. Best of all worlds... until the controller dies.. then the voltage coming off them is to high to use wired directly into the batteries for emergency charging. you would fry the batteries in no time. With my current 24v open voltage panels you could do a very limited amount of charging or just buy a super cheap standard charge controller as a a backup to the much more expensive and more efficient mppt controller. :) lots of ways to skin the cat.. with lots of different reasons to do it one way or the opposite way... So in the end no right or wrong way just a series of choices to make to fit your particular layout and budget.j A good 60 amp mppt controller is 600 dollars.... that's as much as 600 watts of bargain panels now. Is it worth it for an extra 10 to 20% efficiency... on a boat where space is really limited I think so... but if money and budget are critical then you can design system going for panels first and then upgrade the controller later. scott Scott| 25629|25629|2011-03-25 09:20:50|Ralph|Ordered sheets|Hurray!!! I ordered the two large sheets for the hull halves. This after almost 160 hours of construction of bits and pieces for the last year and a half, and two years of scrap yards and looking for second hand deals. The rest of the sheets can be purchased after the hull is tacked together, this due to the size of the building plot... One sheet ST235 12000x2500x5 mm cost 1374 euro = 1145 euro/ton Sandblasting and zinc primer per sheet 120 euro = 100 euro/ton I did a welding course and bought a Kemppi Miniarc 150 inverter welder, capable of welding the 6010 rods and a cutting torch with a propane nozzle. The party can start!| 25630|25629|2011-03-25 10:41:02|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Ordered sheets|Cool, congrats ! Where are you building ? > > Hurray!!! > > I ordered the two large sheets for the hull halves. > > This after almost 160 hours of construction of bits and pieces for the > last year and a half, and two years of scrap yards and looking for > second hand deals. > > The rest of the sheets can be purchased after the hull is tacked > together, this due to the size of the building plot... > > One sheet ST235 12000x2500x5 mm cost 1374 euro = 1145 euro/ton > Sandblasting and zinc primer per sheet 120 euro = 100 euro/ton > > I did a welding course and bought a Kemppi Miniarc 150 inverter > welder, capable of welding the 6010 rods and a cutting torch with a > propane nozzle. > > The party can start! > > __._,_._ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25631|25546|2011-03-25 10:59:26|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Solar Panels|FWIW ... ALL controllers will be dirt cheap in a shortish timeframe, maybe1 year or so. There are a vast nr of new (chinese) companies making these, and component costs are low. These are only expensive because the idea is new, but dc-dc conversion is simple and cheap to do, when built in the very large scales currently done. Component cost is likely 100 $ today, and 50$ within a year (and 25 $ in 2 years). Controllers are likely to be available for 100 $ / 60 amps within a year, simply due to economics. Just like the panels, manufacturing volumes will drive the price down to a realistic level near production costs. Production costs in 1m plus quantities are likely to be under 50$ ... (At these production volumes you can produce your own controller chips etc). > A good 60 amp mppt controller is 600 dollars.... that's as much as 600 > watts of bargain panels now. Is it worth it for an extra 10 to 20% > efficiency... on a boat where space is really limited I think so... > but if money and budget are critical then you can design system going > for panels first and then upgrade the controller later. > scott > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25632|25587|2011-03-25 11:39:52|James Pronk|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|Kim I just saw some that were just the same as regular ginding wheels but they were a cone shape but I can't remember who makes them? These are some of the cup wheels like I use.   http://www.boschtools.com/Products/Accessories/Pages/BoschAccessoryDetail.aspx?pid=343   http://www.pferdusa.com/products/206/20604/2060402.html   --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Kim wrote: From: Kim Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Grinding-off outside welds. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 9:46 PM   Excellent suggestion, James. Curiously, I haven't seen any cup wheels recently in the trade shops around here; but they must be there, and I'll try to get some. They would certainly give a better finish. Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > One of the things that I like to use when grinding welds flush is a cup wheel on my 7 inch grinder. I have seen them for 4.5" and 5" grinders as well and I think they would be easer to handle. With a cup wheel you just put the wheel down flat on the surface that you are grinding and it will give you a very nice finish with less chance of gouging out the materal > James > --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Kim wrote: > > From: Kim > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Grinding-off outside welds. > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 3:34 AM > > Many thanks for all your responses (Brent, John, Jay, Hannu, Mauro, David and Walter). Very much appreciated! > > The very helpful and informative advice so generously given by all you guys here certainly takes a lot of the guesswork out of building one of Brent's designs! :-) > > I think I've got pretty good, thick welds on the major interior seams. Most of them have almost come through to the other side of the 3mm (1/8") plate, so penetration seems OK. Following the general consensus of your replies, for the outside welding I'll follow this procedure: > > 1) Grind the outside lengths of the seams so that the plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other. > > 2) Using a thin cut-off wheel, gouge out the seam on the outside a bit, until the wheel touches the interior weld. > > 3) Fully weld the outside seams. > > 4) Completely grind off all excess weld deposits on the outside of the seams, so that the plates at the joins are flush with each other once again. > > This should provide a smooth, slightly-rounded, no-ridge surface for the paint, and (as some of you have indicated) should produce a stronger, longer-lasting join. As a bonus, it will look so much better! :-) > > Thanks again! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > __________________________________________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25633|25629|2011-03-25 11:51:21|Ralph|Re: Ordered sheets|I am in Belgium. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > Cool, congrats ! > > Where are you building ? > > > > Hurray!!! > > > > I ordered the two large sheets for the hull halves. > > > > This after almost 160 hours of construction of bits and pieces for the > > last year and a half, and two years of scrap yards and looking for > > second hand deals. > > > > The rest of the sheets can be purchased after the hull is tacked > > together, this due to the size of the building plot... > > > > One sheet ST235 12000x2500x5 mm cost 1374 euro = 1145 euro/ton > > Sandblasting and zinc primer per sheet 120 euro = 100 euro/ton > > > > I did a welding course and bought a Kemppi Miniarc 150 inverter > > welder, capable of welding the 6010 rods and a cutting torch with a > > propane nozzle. > > > > The party can start! > > > > __._,_._ > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25634|25612|2011-03-25 17:10:13|brentswain38|Re: lewmar 40 winches|I sailed too many years with Micky Mouse winches. When I saw my Arco 40s for $150 each, I jumped at the opportunity. The bigger the better. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mkriley48" wrote: > > are you racing or cruising? > 99% of the time I never got out the winch handle,just luff up,adjust and fall off, single speed winches are ok just make a longer handle for low gear. I like the old south coats winches with the slot loading handle, No bearings and a complete rebuild kit was only 15 bucks. I have seen these function for decades with any maintenance what so ever. > mike > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > if I quit the idea of a longer boom, running backstays and blocks, I will need winches for a bermudian rig > > I just found two lewmar #40 2 speeds winches, but chrome is of, asking price $300.00 for both, does this sound like a good deal? > > winches seem hard to find used, here in Quebec. > > > > Martin. > > > | 25635|25587|2011-03-26 06:28:01|Kim|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|Thanks for the links, James! Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > Kim > I just saw some that were just the same as regular ginding wheels but they were a cone shape but I can't remember who makes them? > These are some of the cup wheels like I use. > > http://www.boschtools.com/Products/Accessories/Pages/BoschAccessoryDetail.aspx?pid=343 > > http://www.pferdusa.com/products/206/20604/2060402.html > | 25636|25612|2011-03-26 08:38:16|martin demers|Re: lewmar 40 winches|I bought the two winch, so I will go for the bermudian rig, gone is the gaff rig project. My fear was being force to buy new winch at nearly $1000.00 each. Making your own blocks was the cheap way to go. I might even get a third lewmar 40 for $150.00 (for a spare) now I will focus on the mast. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mkriley48@... Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:14:21 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: lewmar 40 winches are you racing or cruising? 99% of the time I never got out the winch handle,just luff up,adjust and fall off, single speed winches are ok just make a longer handle for low gear. I like the old south coats winches with the slot loading handle, No bearings and a complete rebuild kit was only 15 bucks. I have seen these function for decades with any maintenance what so ever. mike --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > if I quit the idea of a longer boom, running backstays and blocks, I will need winches for a bermudian rig > I just found two lewmar #40 2 speeds winches, but chrome is of, asking price $300.00 for both, does this sound like a good deal? > winches seem hard to find used, here in Quebec. > > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25637|6124|2011-03-26 14:42:17|Johnson|Zincs|I'm going to finish up the bottom next month, mount transducers, speed log etc and zincs. What I really need to know is how much zinc, ie sizes and weights to use each side. I've mounted the shaft zinc and have a 3" for the rudder. Quoting an article I read this month re aluminum hulls which stated " if u have too much zinc it can be indicated by blistering of the bottom paint and excessive hard growth.....". So with a 36' aluminum hull what would the experts on this site recommend I start with? Two per side? 3 per side? Size? Weight? I plan to go up a couple of times on a tidal grid to check them @ 3 and 6 months.| 25638|25587|2011-03-26 15:48:08|James Pronk|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|Kim These are the ones that I was thinking of, the type 28   http://flexovitabrasives.com/index.html/screen_id/1764/session_id/983aed3ed95624c8c3b228a022a19385   Cheers, James --- On Sat, 3/26/11, Kim wrote: From: Kim Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Grinding-off outside welds. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Saturday, March 26, 2011, 6:27 AM   Thanks for the links, James! Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > Kim > I just saw some that were just the same as regular ginding wheels but they were a cone shape but I can't remember who makes them? > These are some of the cup wheels like I use. > > http://www.boschtools.com/Products/Accessories/Pages/BoschAccessoryDetail.aspx?pid=343 > > http://www.pferdusa.com/products/206/20604/2060402.html > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25639|25612|2011-03-26 18:01:32|IAN CAMPBELL|Re: lewmar 40 winches|Re coating winches ..... I have rebuilt many off eBay.... " but chrome is  off " Kinetic in Courtenay BC will powder coat 'em with matt black, sandtex black is good, for probably less than twenty dollars each..... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25640|25587|2011-03-26 18:20:44|Kim|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|Thanks James. I'm sure I've seen the Flexovit brand down here. I'll see if I can pick some up (or something similar). Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > Kim > These are the ones that I was thinking of, the type 28 > > http://flexovitabrasives.com/index.html/screen_id/1764/session_id/983aed3ed95624c8c3b228a022a19385 > > Cheers, > James | 25641|25612|2011-03-26 19:13:30|Aaron Williams|Re: lewmar 40 winches|I was wondering how well powder coat would hold up on winches.  I am hoping to pick up a couple of older Lewmar 46. Aaron ________________________________ From: IAN CAMPBELL To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, March 26, 2011 2:01:31 PM Subject: Re: RE: [origamiboats] Re: lewmar 40 winches   Re coating winches ..... I have rebuilt many off eBay.... " but chrome is  off " Kinetic in Courtenay BC will powder coat 'em with matt black, sandtex black is good, for probably less than twenty dollars each..... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25642|25612|2011-03-26 19:55:21|IAN CAMPBELL|Re: lewmar 40 winches|I had Kinetic Coating,  powder coat hatches, in white sandtex, many winches and small parts in black sandtex textured powder coating, inexpensive and surprisingly resistant to wear. Matt black spray pain fixed any chips or scratches in the winches.   Sure beats painting aluminium with the tedious and expensive prep and expensive paints. The powder coating guys clean and blast the items with glass beads. Cost less if the items are spotless when dropped off. ----- Original Message ----- From: Aaron Williams Date: Saturday, March 26, 2011 4:13 pm Subject: Re: RE: [origamiboats] Re: lewmar 40 winches To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > I was wondering how well powder coat would hold up on winches. >  I am hoping to > pick up a couple of older Lewmar 46. > Aaron > > > > > ________________________________ > From: IAN CAMPBELL > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sat, March 26, 2011 2:01:31 PM > Subject: Re: RE: [origamiboats] Re: lewmar 40 winches > >   > > Re coating winches ..... > > I have rebuilt many off eBay.... > > " but chrome is  off " > > Kinetic in Courtenay BC will powder coat 'em with matt black, > > sandtex black is good, for probably less than twenty dollars each..... > > [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] | 25643|25612|2011-03-26 19:56:08|brentswain38|Re: lewmar 40 winches|Like most sailing gear , you can always find winches in excellent condition ,for a fraction the cost of new, especially if you have plenty of time to find them. They don't wear out often. Don't buy anything new ,until you have thoroughly checked out the used market, and other sources. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > I bought the two winch, so I will go for the bermudian rig, gone is the gaff rig project. My fear was being force to buy new winch at nearly $1000.00 each. Making your own blocks was the cheap way to go. I might even get a third lewmar 40 for $150.00 (for a spare) now I will focus on the mast. > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mkriley48@... > Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:14:21 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: lewmar 40 winches > > > > > > > are you racing or cruising? > 99% of the time I never got out the winch handle,just luff up,adjust and fall off, single speed winches are ok just make a longer handle for low gear. I like the old south coats winches with the slot loading handle, No bearings and a complete rebuild kit was only 15 bucks. I have seen these function for decades with any maintenance what so ever. > mike > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > if I quit the idea of a longer boom, running backstays and blocks, I will need winches for a bermudian rig > > I just found two lewmar #40 2 speeds winches, but chrome is of, asking price $300.00 for both, does this sound like a good deal? > > winches seem hard to find used, here in Quebec. > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25644|6124|2011-03-26 19:58:50|brentswain38|Re: Zincs|On steel hulls, I put a Z3 on each side of the skeg web, and one Z3 on the bottom of the rudder , centred. I don't have any experience with aluminium hulls. Maybe someone here who does, can comment on her experience. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Johnson" wrote: > > I'm going to finish up the bottom next month, mount transducers, speed log etc and zincs. > > What I really need to know is how much zinc, ie sizes and weights to use each side. I've mounted the shaft zinc and have a 3" for the rudder. > > Quoting an article I read this month re aluminum hulls which stated " if u have too much zinc it can be indicated by blistering of the bottom paint and excessive hard growth.....". > > So with a 36' aluminum hull what would the experts on this site recommend I start with? Two per side? 3 per side? Size? Weight? > I plan to go up a couple of times on a tidal grid to check them @ 3 and 6 months. > | 25645|25629|2011-03-26 20:01:34|brentswain38|Re: Ordered sheets|Congratulations . Keep us posted on your progress. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > Hurray!!! > > I ordered the two large sheets for the hull halves. > > This after almost 160 hours of construction of bits and pieces for the last year and a half, and two years of scrap yards and looking for second hand deals. > > The rest of the sheets can be purchased after the hull is tacked together, this due to the size of the building plot... > > One sheet ST235 12000x2500x5 mm cost 1374 euro = 1145 euro/ton > Sandblasting and zinc primer per sheet 120 euro = 100 euro/ton > > I did a welding course and bought a Kemppi Miniarc 150 inverter welder, capable of welding the 6010 rods and a cutting torch with a propane nozzle. > > The party can start! > | 25646|25612|2011-03-26 21:47:36|martin demers|Re: lewmar 40 winches|Brent, do you need more than two size 40 winches on a 36-37 ft yacht? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 23:56:02 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: lewmar 40 winches Like most sailing gear , you can always find winches in excellent condition ,for a fraction the cost of new, especially if you have plenty of time to find them. They don't wear out often. Don't buy anything new ,until you have thoroughly checked out the used market, and other sources. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > I bought the two winch, so I will go for the bermudian rig, gone is the gaff rig project. My fear was being force to buy new winch at nearly $1000.00 each. Making your own blocks was the cheap way to go. I might even get a third lewmar 40 for $150.00 (for a spare) now I will focus on the mast. > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mkriley48@... > Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:14:21 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: lewmar 40 winches > > > > > > > are you racing or cruising? > 99% of the time I never got out the winch handle,just luff up,adjust and fall off, single speed winches are ok just make a longer handle for low gear. I like the old south coats winches with the slot loading handle, No bearings and a complete rebuild kit was only 15 bucks. I have seen these function for decades with any maintenance what so ever. > mike > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > if I quit the idea of a longer boom, running backstays and blocks, I will need winches for a bermudian rig > > I just found two lewmar #40 2 speeds winches, but chrome is of, asking price $300.00 for both, does this sound like a good deal? > > winches seem hard to find used, here in Quebec. > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25647|6124|2011-03-27 11:12:40|Gary H. Lucas|Re: Zincs|I had heard that on aluminum hulls you want to use magnesium, not zinc, as it is further away on the galvanic chart. I don’t have experience with it myself. Gary H. Lucas From: Johnson Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 2:42 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Zincs I'm going to finish up the bottom next month, mount transducers, speed log etc and zincs. What I really need to know is how much zinc, ie sizes and weights to use each side. I've mounted the shaft zinc and have a 3" for the rudder. Quoting an article I read this month re aluminum hulls which stated " if u have too much zinc it can be indicated by blistering of the bottom paint and excessive hard growth.....". So with a 36' aluminum hull what would the experts on this site recommend I start with? Two per side? 3 per side? Size? Weight? I plan to go up a couple of times on a tidal grid to check them @ 3 and 6 months. Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25648|6124|2011-03-27 12:56:05|mauro gonzaga|Re: Zincs|I confirm. mauro --- On Sun, 3/27/11, Gary H. Lucas wrote: From: Gary H. Lucas Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Zincs To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 4:53 PM   I had heard that on aluminum hulls you want to use magnesium, not zinc, as it is further away on the galvanic chart. I don’t have experience with it myself. Gary H. Lucas From: Johnson Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 2:42 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Zincs I'm going to finish up the bottom next month, mount transducers, speed log etc and zincs. What I really need to know is how much zinc, ie sizes and weights to use each side. I've mounted the shaft zinc and have a 3" for the rudder. Quoting an article I read this month re aluminum hulls which stated " if u have too much zinc it can be indicated by blistering of the bottom paint and excessive hard growth.....". So with a 36' aluminum hull what would the experts on this site recommend I start with? Two per side? 3 per side? Size? Weight? I plan to go up a couple of times on a tidal grid to check them @ 3 and 6 months. Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25649|6124|2011-03-27 20:15:15|Gary H. Lucas|Neat welding tool|Anybody here familiar with Eastwood Intergrip Panel Clamps? Neat tool for thin sheet metal body work. However you could easily duplicate these things in a larger size using just a short piece of Square tubing, and little hardware. Might be great for butt-welding sheets, pulling chine cuts into alignment etc. I saw set for the first time today. Gary H. Lucas From: mauro gonzaga Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 12:56 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Zincs I confirm. mauro --- On Sun, 3/27/11, Gary H. Lucas wrote: From: Gary H. Lucas Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Zincs To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 4:53 PM I had heard that on aluminum hulls you want to use magnesium, not zinc, as it is further away on the galvanic chart. I don’t have experience with it myself. Gary H. Lucas From: Johnson Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 2:42 PM To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Zincs I'm going to finish up the bottom next month, mount transducers, speed log etc and zincs. What I really need to know is how much zinc, ie sizes and weights to use each side. I've mounted the shaft zinc and have a 3" for the rudder. Quoting an article I read this month re aluminum hulls which stated " if u have too much zinc it can be indicated by blistering of the bottom paint and excessive hard growth.....". So with a 36' aluminum hull what would the experts on this site recommend I start with? Two per side? 3 per side? Size? Weight? I plan to go up a couple of times on a tidal grid to check them @ 3 and 6 months. 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] | 25650|6124|2011-03-28 04:47:30|boatwayupnorth|Re: Neat welding tool|Garry, are these the clamps you are looking for? http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c190/procharged79/roofrepair003.jpg Here is a great link for making your own: http://www.mig-welding.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=4676 Regards Walter --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > Anybody here familiar with Eastwood Intergrip Panel Clamps? Neat tool for thin sheet metal body work. However you could easily duplicate these things in a larger size using just a short piece of Square tubing, and little hardware. Might be great for butt-welding sheets, pulling chine cuts into alignment etc. I saw set for the first time today. > > Gary H. Lucas > > > From: mauro gonzaga > Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 12:56 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Zincs > > > I confirm. > mauro > > --- On Sun, 3/27/11, Gary H. Lucas wrote: > > From: Gary H. Lucas > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Zincs > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > Date: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 4:53 PM > > > > I had heard that on aluminum hulls you want to use magnesium, not zinc, as it is further away on the galvanic chart. I don’t have experience with it myself. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Johnson > > Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 2:42 PM > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [origamiboats] Zincs > > I'm going to finish up the bottom next month, mount transducers, speed log etc and zincs. > > What I really need to know is how much zinc, ie sizes and weights to use each side. I've mounted the shaft zinc and have a 3" for the rudder. > > Quoting an article I read this month re aluminum hulls which stated " if u have too much zinc it can be indicated by blistering of the bottom paint and excessive hard growth.....". > > So with a 36' aluminum hull what would the experts on this site recommend I start with? Two per side? 3 per side? Size? Weight? > > I plan to go up a couple of times on a tidal grid to check them @ 3 and 6 months. > > 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] > | 25651|6124|2011-03-28 13:58:58|Jim|Re: Zincs|It is interesting that a number of Dutch-built aluminum boats have no zincs (or magnesium anodes) at all. Several I know of are 30+ years old. I asked the builders and they say there's no need. Also I have neighbors who are mussel farmers and their aluminum workboats (in the water 365 days a year for the past 35 years) have no anodes. According to the books, this is very risky. Is mostly a concern when in crowded marinas with stray currents? Jim --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > I had heard that on aluminum hulls you want to use magnesium, not zinc, as it is further away on the galvanic chart. I don’t have experience with it myself. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Johnson > Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 2:42 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [origamiboats] Zincs > > > I'm going to finish up the bottom next month, mount transducers, speed log etc and zincs. > > What I really need to know is how much zinc, ie sizes and weights to use each side. I've mounted the shaft zinc and have a 3" for the rudder. > > Quoting an article I read this month re aluminum hulls which stated " if u have too much zinc it can be indicated by blistering of the bottom paint and excessive hard growth.....". > > So with a 36' aluminum hull what would the experts on this site recommend I start with? Two per side? 3 per side? Size? Weight? > I plan to go up a couple of times on a tidal grid to check them @ 3 and 6 months. > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25652|6124|2011-03-28 16:17:06|Matt Malone|Re: Zincs|Stray currents from the environment are really a different thing than zincs (magnesium) however, zincs may serve as the departure or entry point for currents, so, if you have enough of them, one can be reasonably sure one is losing metal ions at a zinc and not at the hull. But that is a zinc being involved in an outside circuit. Care should be taken with the electrical system of the boat, and how this attaches to shore power, and how other boats around you are attached. I am not inclined to believe that electricity flows through the water to your boat hull under water in one spot and leaves out another point on the hull also under the same patch of salt water. I am inclined to think that some other connection (shore power, voltages on shafting in motors and pumps, etc) is to blame and the point where the (positive) current leaves the hull, and one sees the corrosion is only half of the story. Zincs create a dis-similar metal situation, inducing one of the metals to corrode -- the zinc. The other metal, typically steel, is taking on a more negative charge, trying to give away electrons. The idea is, rusting is Fe becoming Fe 3+ or 2+ and leaving the boat, which is the opposite current flow. So the zincs intentionally create an internal circuit that eats metal, and the metal being eaten is the zinc. Different, but potentially related things. Now, what about no zincs in an aluminium boat ? What is the rudder shaft made of ? What is the prop shaft made of ? Probably not aluminum (of exactly the same grade), probably steel of some sort, so, it is likely a circuit will be created between the steel and the aluminum... Now which one would one of those: rudder shaft or hull, would you like to lose to salt water and dissimilar metal corrosion ? Zincs or magnesium are not expensive, and even if they are not 100% effective at stopping corrosion in all cases, why wouldn't one use them ? As for too much zinc.... why do they galvanize buckets and fences ? Because, for cathodic protection, more is better, typically. There is an amount that is recommended or sufficient, and then there is more. The voltage set up by a sacrificial anode is determined by the chemical tables. If one puts on too few, that can't keep up with the current flow, then the voltage may slacken, the hull may not be adequately protected. However, above "adequate" the voltage does not increase. If one puts on more zincs than "adequate" there should be no measurable difference on the hull. If the hull builds up hard deposits then I am inclined to believe the water chemistry in the area where you are is inclined to it, not the extent of one's zincs. I would not be surprised if something else, maybe calcium, is attracted to a properly protected hull, instead of the steel / aluminium metal leaving. While these deposits may be a headache, it seems less of a headache than corrosion. Now paints are an odd thing -- a lot of chemistry going on at the surface. It is possible that the interface chemistry of an aluminum paint is messed up by zincs. Maybe the higher reactivity of the magnesium is what is needed to keep the paint on. I would ask the specific paint manufacturer of your boat what is compatible with their paint. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: rosbe@... Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:12:09 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Zincs It is interesting that a number of Dutch-built aluminum boats have no zincs (or magnesium anodes) at all. Several I know of are 30+ years old. I asked the builders and they say there's no need. Also I have neighbors who are mussel farmers and their aluminum workboats (in the water 365 days a year for the past 35 years) have no anodes. According to the books, this is very risky. Is mostly a concern when in crowded marinas with stray currents? Jim --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > I had heard that on aluminum hulls you want to use magnesium, not zinc, as it is further away on the galvanic chart. I don���t have experience with it myself. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Johnson > Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 2:42 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [origamiboats] Zincs > > > I'm going to finish up the bottom next month, mount transducers, speed log etc and zincs. > > What I really need to know is how much zinc, ie sizes and weights to use each side. I've mounted the shaft zinc and have a 3" for the rudder. > > Quoting an article I read this month re aluminum hulls which stated " if u have too much zinc it can be indicated by blistering of the bottom paint and excessive hard growth.....". > > So with a 36' aluminum hull what would the experts on this site recommend I start with? Two per side? 3 per side? Size? Weight? > I plan to go up a couple of times on a tidal grid to check them @ 3 and 6 months. > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25653|6124|2011-03-28 20:11:01|wild_explorer|Re: Zincs|Corrosion resistance can be excellent due to a thin surface layer of aluminium oxide that forms when the metal is exposed to air, effectively preventing further oxidation. The strongest aluminium alloys are less corrosion resistant due to galvanic reactions with alloyed copper.[6] This corrosion resistance is also often greatly reduced when many aqueous salts are present, particularly in the presence of dissimilar metals. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium Aluminum oxide is very good dielectric. That why aluminum wires are not used in residential building anymore. Wires connections required proper sanding and covering with electrical anti-oxidant. Many electricians and owners failed to follow this procedure and it was cause of fire hazard. So, it looks like that not painted hull used in fresh water does not need any coating. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" wrote: > > It is interesting that a number of Dutch-built aluminum boats have no zincs (or magnesium anodes) at all. Several I know of are 30+ years old. I asked the builders and they say there's no need. Also I have neighbors who are mussel farmers and their aluminum workboats (in the water 365 days a year for the past 35 years) have no anodes. According to the books, this is very risky. Is mostly a concern when in crowded marinas with stray currents? > | 25654|6124|2011-03-28 20:40:07|Gary H. Lucas|Re: Neat welding tool|Yes, those were the clamps I was referring to. The welding site was interesting, but the guy is clueless about aluminum mig welding! Gary H. Lucas From: boatwayupnorth Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 4:47 AM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Neat welding tool Garry, are these the clamps you are looking for? http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c190/procharged79/roofrepair003.jpg Here is a great link for making your own: http://www.mig-welding.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=4676 Regards Walter --- In mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > Anybody here familiar with Eastwood Intergrip Panel Clamps? Neat tool for thin sheet metal body work. However you could easily duplicate these things in a larger size using just a short piece of Square tubing, and little hardware. Might be great for butt-welding sheets, pulling chine cuts into alignment etc. I saw set for the first time today. > > Gary H. Lucas > > > From: mauro gonzaga > Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 12:56 PM > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Zincs > > > I confirm. > mauro > > --- On Sun, 3/27/11, Gary H. Lucas wrote: > > From: Gary H. Lucas > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Zincs > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > Date: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 4:53 PM > > > > I had heard that on aluminum hulls you want to use magnesium, not zinc, as it is further away on the galvanic chart. I don’t have experience with it myself. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Johnson > > Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 2:42 PM > > To: mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [origamiboats] Zincs > > I'm going to finish up the bottom next month, mount transducers, speed log etc and zincs. > > What I really need to know is how much zinc, ie sizes and weights to use each side. I've mounted the shaft zinc and have a 3" for the rudder. > > Quoting an article I read this month re aluminum hulls which stated " if u have too much zinc it can be indicated by blistering of the bottom paint and excessive hard growth.....". > > So with a 36' aluminum hull what would the experts on this site recommend I start with? Two per side? 3 per side? Size? Weight? > > I plan to go up a couple of times on a tidal grid to check them @ 3 and 6 months. > > 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] > Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25655|6124|2011-03-28 23:26:35|Aaron Williams|Re: Zincs|One thing never to do is weld on an aluminum boat while it is in the water without double checking the ground. The saltwater will ground the boat well enough to make welds like fixing handrails or odds and ends but electrolysis taking place a waterline and below is extreme enough to sink the boat in only a few hours. Aaron ________________________________ From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, March 28, 2011 4:10:54 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Zincs   Corrosion resistance can be excellent due to a thin surface layer of aluminium oxide that forms when the metal is exposed to air, effectively preventing further oxidation. The strongest aluminium alloys are less corrosion resistant due to galvanic reactions with alloyed copper.[6] This corrosion resistance is also often greatly reduced when many aqueous salts are present, particularly in the presence of dissimilar metals. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium Aluminum oxide is very good dielectric. That why aluminum wires are not used in residential building anymore. Wires connections required proper sanding and covering with electrical anti-oxidant. Many electricians and owners failed to follow this procedure and it was cause of fire hazard. So, it looks like that not painted hull used in fresh water does not need any coating. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" wrote: > > It is interesting that a number of Dutch-built aluminum boats have no zincs (or >magnesium anodes) at all. Several I know of are 30+ years old. I asked the >builders and they say there's no need. Also I have neighbors who are mussel >farmers and their aluminum workboats (in the water 365 days a year for the past >35 years) have no anodes. According to the books, this is very risky. Is mostly >a concern when in crowded marinas with stray currents? > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25656|6124|2011-03-28 23:42:41|Ben Okopnik|Re: Zincs|On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 08:26:33PM -0700, Aaron Williams wrote: > One thing never to do is weld on an aluminum boat while it is in the water > without double checking the ground. The saltwater will ground the boat well > enough to make welds like fixing handrails or odds and ends but electrolysis > taking place a waterline and below is extreme enough to sink the boat in only a > few hours. I'm not very clear on what kind of problem could happen, or why it would be worse on an aluminum boat than on a steel one. Could you explain it a bit more? 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| 25657|6124|2011-03-28 23:56:06|Aaron Williams|Re: Zincs|http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Definitions/galvanic-series.htm  Just a quick grab on the net gives this chart. Aluminum can be used as an annode on a steel boat. Why?  look at the chart it is higher on the scale. or lesser of a noble metal than carbon steel. Aaron ________________________________ From: Ben Okopnik To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, March 28, 2011 7:42:27 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Zincs On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 08:26:33PM -0700, Aaron Williams wrote: > One thing never to do is weld on an aluminum boat while it is in the water > without double checking the ground. The saltwater will ground the boat well > enough to make welds like fixing handrails or odds and ends but electrolysis > taking place a waterline and below is extreme enough to sink the boat in only a > > few hours. I'm not very clear on what kind of problem could happen, or why it would be worse on an aluminum boat than on a steel one. Could you explain it a bit more? 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25658|6124|2011-03-29 00:10:46|Aaron Williams|Re: Zincs|Ben I am not as witty as some here but this should be a fare way to confirm what can happen. I dont have a portable welder and the beach close to my house is still frozen so I will take the words of several eye witness to what has happened to other aluminum fishing boats. If someone is close enough to saltwater and wants to do an experiment connect one lead from a welding machine to a strip of aluminum and drop it into the water then drop the ground clamp on the ground I don't think you would have to put it in the water at least I would not want to. then try the same thing with a piece of steel. The aluminum will start bubbling and giving its self to the more noble minerals in the seawater. Oh and don't forget the hydrogen and Oxygen that is made from the brakedown through electrolysis. (Not to be confused with the free energy type) It could cost a boat load.  The steel will do the same on at a much slower rate boring rate but it will get there. Ben do you have one of those on board alternator welders just hook up one lead to aluminum boat next to you and ground to your boat. That could give a better example :) Aaron ________________________________ From: Ben Okopnik To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, March 28, 2011 7:42:27 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Zincs On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 08:26:33PM -0700, Aaron Williams wrote: > One thing never to do is weld on an aluminum boat while it is in the water > without double checking the ground. The saltwater will ground the boat well > enough to make welds like fixing handrails or odds and ends but electrolysis > taking place a waterline and below is extreme enough to sink the boat in only a > > few hours. I'm not very clear on what kind of problem could happen, or why it would be worse on an aluminum boat than on a steel one. Could you explain it a bit more? 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25659|6124|2011-03-29 06:35:05|Ben Okopnik|Re: Zincs|On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 09:10:45PM -0700, Aaron Williams wrote: > > If someone is close enough to saltwater and wants to do an experiment connect > one lead from a welding machine to a strip of aluminum and drop it into the > water then drop the ground clamp on the ground I don't think you would have to > put it in the water at least I would not want to. then try the same thing with a > piece of steel. The aluminum will start bubbling and giving its self to the more > noble minerals in the seawater. See, this is why I was confused by what you were saying, and had a problem visualizing it. In the case when you're welding aboard a boat at anchor, you're making the power on board - so the relationship between your welding stinger and the ground that's in the water is the same as between a positive and a negative end of two otherwise disconnected batteries (i.e., no current can flow between them.) The situation that you're describing now is the opposite of that one: a welding machine ashore, with its ground connected to earth - which means that there's now a common electrical path between your stinger and the ground, i.e., through the water. I just figured I was missing something in what you were saying. I haven't tried this - I'm not at the boat now, and won't be back for a a while yet, darn it - but I suspect that the "bubbling" story is as apocryphal as the one about Hereshoff dropping a piece of bronze and aluminum into a bucket of salt water and watching them bubble, or the one about a copper penny eating through an aluminum hull in (hours, days, minutes - take your pick, I've heard them all.) I hope I don't forget about it before I get back (I suspect I will, though); it wouldn't take me much to fire up the engine, hang the leads over the side, and take a video. Maybe someone else can volunteer meanwhile? 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| 25660|25612|2011-03-29 16:09:46|brentswain38|Re: lewmar 40 winches|No. Two 40's is plenty, and one direct drive for the main halyard. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > Brent, > > do you need more than two size 40 winches on a 36-37 ft yacht? > > Martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 23:56:02 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: lewmar 40 winches > > > > > > > Like most sailing gear , you can always find winches in excellent condition ,for a fraction the cost of new, especially if you have plenty of time to find them. They don't wear out often. > Don't buy anything new ,until you have thoroughly checked out the used market, and other sources. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > > > > I bought the two winch, so I will go for the bermudian rig, gone is the gaff rig project. My fear was being force to buy new winch at nearly $1000.00 each. Making your own blocks was the cheap way to go. I might even get a third lewmar 40 for $150.00 (for a spare) now I will focus on the mast. > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: mkriley48@ > > Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:14:21 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: lewmar 40 winches > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are you racing or cruising? > > 99% of the time I never got out the winch handle,just luff up,adjust and fall off, single speed winches are ok just make a longer handle for low gear. I like the old south coats winches with the slot loading handle, No bearings and a complete rebuild kit was only 15 bucks. I have seen these function for decades with any maintenance what so ever. > > mike > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > if I quit the idea of a longer boom, running backstays and blocks, I will need winches for a bermudian rig > > > I just found two lewmar #40 2 speeds winches, but chrome is of, asking price $300.00 for both, does this sound like a good deal? > > > winches seem hard to find used, here in Quebec. > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25661|6124|2011-03-29 16:12:33|brentswain38|Re: Zincs|Almost all commercial boats on the BC coast use zincs, welded on by their aluminium straps. The problem in my dinghy was, I tracked some copper filings off the dock, and despite much bailing over the years each invisible spec left behind ate it's own way thru. a zinc welded in the bottom would have eliminated that problem. Not needed on clean aluminium , but who can be absolutely sure of that . The zinc is insurance. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > I had heard that on aluminum hulls you want to use magnesium, not zinc, as it is further away on the galvanic chart. I don’t have experience with it myself. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Johnson > Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 2:42 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [origamiboats] Zincs > > > I'm going to finish up the bottom next month, mount transducers, speed log etc and zincs. > > What I really need to know is how much zinc, ie sizes and weights to use each side. I've mounted the shaft zinc and have a 3" for the rudder. > > Quoting an article I read this month re aluminum hulls which stated " if u have too much zinc it can be indicated by blistering of the bottom paint and excessive hard growth.....". > > So with a 36' aluminum hull what would the experts on this site recommend I start with? Two per side? 3 per side? Size? Weight? > I plan to go up a couple of times on a tidal grid to check them @ 3 and 6 months. > > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25662|6124|2011-03-29 16:23:25|brentswain38|Re: Zincs|Friends were once putting a wheelhouse on a steel Saugeen witch. They had problems with not enough heat, so kept turning their welder up. After it was raised considerably, they decided to check the ground. It was laying on the steel barge they were tied up to. They looked down, and saw all this orange stuff floating in the water alongside them. The welder was at 400 amps. The orange stuff was their antifouling. They dried her out on a tide grid, and the bottom looked like it had been freshly sandblasted. Maybe a way to minimize sandblasting expenses , if you could guarantee the rate of corrosion would be even, and how much you were taking off. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > One thing never to do is weld on an aluminum boat while it is in the water > without double checking the ground. The saltwater will ground the boat well > enough to make welds like fixing handrails or odds and ends but electrolysis > taking place a waterline and below is extreme enough to sink the boat in only a > few hours. > > Aaron > > > > > ________________________________ > From: wild_explorer > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Mon, March 28, 2011 4:10:54 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Zincs > >   > Corrosion resistance can be excellent due to a thin surface layer of aluminium > oxide that forms when the metal is exposed to air, effectively preventing > further oxidation. The strongest aluminium alloys are less corrosion resistant > due to galvanic reactions with alloyed copper.[6] This corrosion resistance is > also often greatly reduced when many aqueous salts are present, particularly in > the presence of dissimilar metals. > > Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium > > Aluminum oxide is very good dielectric. That why aluminum wires are not used in > residential building anymore. Wires connections required proper sanding and > covering with electrical anti-oxidant. Many electricians and owners failed to > follow this procedure and it was cause of fire hazard. > > So, it looks like that not painted hull used in fresh water does not need any > coating. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" wrote: > > > > It is interesting that a number of Dutch-built aluminum boats have no zincs (or > >magnesium anodes) at all. Several I know of are 30+ years old. I asked the > >builders and they say there's no need. Also I have neighbors who are mussel > >farmers and their aluminum workboats (in the water 365 days a year for the past > >35 years) have no anodes. According to the books, this is very risky. Is mostly > >a concern when in crowded marinas with stray currents? > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25663|6124|2011-03-30 11:53:42|badpirate36|Re: Zincs|Not sure if I undersatnd correctly. Is it unsafe to weld on an aluminum boat in saltwater using shore power, or it is safe as long as it is grounded properly? This post has come at a very good time, I am about to have a innerforestay tang welded onto my boat, the fellow I contacted about doing the welding did not mention any concerns about corrosion if done while afloat. Thanx Tom --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Friends were once putting a wheelhouse on a steel Saugeen witch. They had problems with not enough heat, so kept turning their welder up. After it was raised considerably, they decided to check the ground. It was laying on the steel barge they were tied up to. They looked down, and saw all this orange stuff floating in the water alongside them. The welder was at 400 amps. The orange stuff was their antifouling. > They dried her out on a tide grid, and the bottom looked like it had been freshly sandblasted. > Maybe a way to minimize sandblasting expenses , if you could guarantee the rate of corrosion would be even, and how much you were taking off. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > > > One thing never to do is weld on an aluminum boat while it is in the water > > without double checking the ground. The saltwater will ground the boat well > > enough to make welds like fixing handrails or odds and ends but electrolysis > > taking place a waterline and below is extreme enough to sink the boat in only a > > few hours. > > > > Aaron > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: wild_explorer > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Mon, March 28, 2011 4:10:54 PM > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Zincs > > > >   > > Corrosion resistance can be excellent due to a thin surface layer of aluminium > > oxide that forms when the metal is exposed to air, effectively preventing > > further oxidation. The strongest aluminium alloys are less corrosion resistant > > due to galvanic reactions with alloyed copper.[6] This corrosion resistance is > > also often greatly reduced when many aqueous salts are present, particularly in > > the presence of dissimilar metals. > > > > Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium > > > > Aluminum oxide is very good dielectric. That why aluminum wires are not used in > > residential building anymore. Wires connections required proper sanding and > > covering with electrical anti-oxidant. Many electricians and owners failed to > > follow this procedure and it was cause of fire hazard. > > > > So, it looks like that not painted hull used in fresh water does not need any > > coating. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" wrote: > > > > > > It is interesting that a number of Dutch-built aluminum boats have no zincs (or > > >magnesium anodes) at all. Several I know of are 30+ years old. I asked the > > >builders and they say there's no need. Also I have neighbors who are mussel > > >farmers and their aluminum workboats (in the water 365 days a year for the past > > >35 years) have no anodes. According to the books, this is very risky. Is mostly > > >a concern when in crowded marinas with stray currents? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 25664|6124|2011-03-30 12:25:01|Matt Malone|Re: Zincs|If he is a pro welder, he will know what to do. What you can do, that will not hurt, and may help, before he comes, is: - make sure your boat is resting against rubber fenders (not making metal to metal contact with anything), - not chained to anything that might be connected to hydro-ground like a metal bit of dock with a power outlet on it, or another boat and - you have unplugged the shore power. That reasonably electrically isolates your boat from stray power that might be incompatible with his welder should his welder have any isolation problems. An isolation problem might be, where the utility ground pin in his welder or the outlet or service he plugs it into is bad, meaning, your boat may become the utility ground, for his welder, which strictly speaking should not be a problem either. New, clean, dry, well-designed equipment does not send any current through its utility ground pin. If the utility ground is bad and the welder has internal leakage to ground (because it is old & filled with dust, maybe some if it metal dust, or moisture) that this pin would normally sink, your boat may become utility ground for the welder. Any leakage that would lead to more than 12 V of float is likely to cause tingles (touching the welder) that the person welding would notice. However, less than 12 V is still way more than the electrochemical voltage of all chemical reactions (eating hull, stripping anti-fouling etc) and if he is a land/structural steel welder, he may not have noticed such a small voltage before. If there were serious isolation problems in the shore power electrical service to the dock, and he plugged in differently, or had an engine-driven welder, and grounded to something other than just your boat, his welder might, for your boat only, serve as the utility ground, meaning, your boat might draw all of the stray currents from all the metal boats around you. This would be a problem that would be affecting everyone if they had any different electrical service running from the shore, in addition to shore power. If he has experience as a marine welder, he will know all this stuff already, and will frequently check his equipment for even small leakages. Still, it never hurts to unplug shore power. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25665|6124|2011-03-30 14:14:44|Aaron Williams|Re: Zincs|Just make sure of proper ground and preferable close to the work. Aaron ________________________________ From: badpirate36 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, March 29, 2011 10:34:24 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Zincs   Not sure if I undersatnd correctly. Is it unsafe to weld on an aluminum boat in saltwater using shore power, or it is safe as long as it is grounded properly? This post has come at a very good time, I am about to have a innerforestay tang welded onto my boat, the fellow I contacted about doing the welding did not mention any concerns about corrosion if done while afloat. Thanx Tom --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Friends were once putting a wheelhouse on a steel Saugeen witch. They had >problems with not enough heat, so kept turning their welder up. After it was >raised considerably, they decided to check the ground. It was laying on the >steel barge they were tied up to. They looked down, and saw all this orange >stuff floating in the water alongside them. The welder was at 400 amps. The >orange stuff was their antifouling. > They dried her out on a tide grid, and the bottom looked like it had been >freshly sandblasted. > Maybe a way to minimize sandblasting expenses , if you could guarantee the rate >of corrosion would be even, and how much you were taking off. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > > > One thing never to do is weld on an aluminum boat while it is in the water > > without double checking the ground. The saltwater will ground the boat well > > enough to make welds like fixing handrails or odds and ends but electrolysis > > taking place a waterline and below is extreme enough to sink the boat in only >a > > > few hours. > > > > Aaron > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: wild_explorer > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Mon, March 28, 2011 4:10:54 PM > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Zincs > > > >   > > Corrosion resistance can be excellent due to a thin surface layer of >aluminium > > > oxide that forms when the metal is exposed to air, effectively preventing > > further oxidation. The strongest aluminium alloys are less corrosion >resistant > > > due to galvanic reactions with alloyed copper.[6] This corrosion resistance >is > > > also often greatly reduced when many aqueous salts are present, particularly >in > > > the presence of dissimilar metals. > > > > Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium > > > > Aluminum oxide is very good dielectric. That why aluminum wires are not used >in > > > residential building anymore. Wires connections required proper sanding and > > covering with electrical anti-oxidant. Many electricians and owners failed to > > > follow this procedure and it was cause of fire hazard. > > > > So, it looks like that not painted hull used in fresh water does not need any > > > coating. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" wrote: > > > > > > It is interesting that a number of Dutch-built aluminum boats have no zincs >(or > > > >magnesium anodes) at all. Several I know of are 30+ years old. I asked the > > >builders and they say there's no need. Also I have neighbors who are mussel > > >farmers and their aluminum workboats (in the water 365 days a year for the >past > > > >35 years) have no anodes. According to the books, this is very risky. Is >mostly > > > >a concern when in crowded marinas with stray currents? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25666|6124|2011-03-30 16:19:29|brentswain38|Re: Zincs|As long as it is DC, with negative ground, and well grounded, you should have no problem. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > Not sure if I undersatnd correctly. Is it unsafe to weld on an aluminum boat in saltwater using shore power, or it is safe as long as it is grounded properly? This post has come at a very good time, I am about to have a innerforestay tang welded onto my boat, the fellow I contacted about doing the welding did not mention any concerns about corrosion if done while afloat. > Thanx Tom > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Friends were once putting a wheelhouse on a steel Saugeen witch. They had problems with not enough heat, so kept turning their welder up. After it was raised considerably, they decided to check the ground. It was laying on the steel barge they were tied up to. They looked down, and saw all this orange stuff floating in the water alongside them. The welder was at 400 amps. The orange stuff was their antifouling. > > They dried her out on a tide grid, and the bottom looked like it had been freshly sandblasted. > > Maybe a way to minimize sandblasting expenses , if you could guarantee the rate of corrosion would be even, and how much you were taking off. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Williams wrote: > > > > > > One thing never to do is weld on an aluminum boat while it is in the water > > > without double checking the ground. The saltwater will ground the boat well > > > enough to make welds like fixing handrails or odds and ends but electrolysis > > > taking place a waterline and below is extreme enough to sink the boat in only a > > > few hours. > > > > > > Aaron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: wild_explorer > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Mon, March 28, 2011 4:10:54 PM > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Zincs > > > > > >   > > > Corrosion resistance can be excellent due to a thin surface layer of aluminium > > > oxide that forms when the metal is exposed to air, effectively preventing > > > further oxidation. The strongest aluminium alloys are less corrosion resistant > > > due to galvanic reactions with alloyed copper.[6] This corrosion resistance is > > > also often greatly reduced when many aqueous salts are present, particularly in > > > the presence of dissimilar metals. > > > > > > Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium > > > > > > Aluminum oxide is very good dielectric. That why aluminum wires are not used in > > > residential building anymore. Wires connections required proper sanding and > > > covering with electrical anti-oxidant. Many electricians and owners failed to > > > follow this procedure and it was cause of fire hazard. > > > > > > So, it looks like that not painted hull used in fresh water does not need any > > > coating. > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" wrote: > > > > > > > > It is interesting that a number of Dutch-built aluminum boats have no zincs (or > > > >magnesium anodes) at all. Several I know of are 30+ years old. I asked the > > > >builders and they say there's no need. Also I have neighbors who are mussel > > > >farmers and their aluminum workboats (in the water 365 days a year for the past > > > >35 years) have no anodes. According to the books, this is very risky. Is mostly > > > >a concern when in crowded marinas with stray currents? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > | 25667|25587|2011-03-30 16:36:41|brentswain38|Re: Grinding-off outside welds.|I think a major problem is, most designers and builders make a lot of effort at things which don't really matter much , but make zero effort at resolving the biggest problem most cruisers face, time and money. Many design and build as if all their clients have unlimited supplies of time and money. They price themselves out of the much larger, not so rich market, then condemn me for catering to the not so rich. I have been told that recently, many designers have hit a major drought in the industry. Doesn't bother me much, as my needs are so small, but if I were trying to support the car culture , land living, marinas , etc, I would be in serious economic difficulties. Trying to keep the costs to clients, in time and money, down, has helped be keep going during the slump. At $30 an hour, I like to give people their $30 worth in terms of what gets done. One client asked Evan how long it takes to put in a stern tube and aperture. Evan said "8 hours". The client told the fabricating shop he was near" Go ahead." The shop took 35 hours at shop rate, and I had to do more work on it to get it watertight. What they did was an abortion. I usually take three hours for that job. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > On a percentage basis of plans sold to boats built, I’d bet Brent wins hands down. I once got a study plan from Bruce Roberts and realized I would be years just framing and plating the hull! That is the reason that so many fail to complete them. A BS boat sailing slowly around the world will complete the journey before you complete the hull of a Bruce Roberts boat. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: CNC 6-axis Designs > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 2:36 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Grinding-off outside welds. > > > The common practice seems to be no grinding or light grinding. > I have no idea about the ABYC re: corrosion stuff that was mentioned. > > Commercial ships are not (necessarily) ground, at least a lot of the > ones I have seen in harbours. > > Bruce Roberts, whose designs are maybe not the best but who has sold > more steel boat designs than everyone else together, and who has more > built designs than everyone else together, recommends no or light grinding. > > BR has sold over 10.000 designs (maybe 20k ?), with maybe some hundreds > built. > I believe Brent Swain has maybe 40-50 designs built. > > Most of the BR designs are very heavy, and slow and complex to build. > They are known as being very slow, as they are too round, fat and heavy. > This may not apply to the bigger, 13-15m plus sizes, but these are a > very tiny minority. > > Like most steel sailboats, including the Brent Swain origami design, all > steel sailboats are very, very strong. > > FWIW, I would just smooth with a 30-40 grit flap wheel with a pneumatic > grinder, very fast to do, and leave almost all of it. > Electrical if you have no compressor. > > Brent Swain is probably the best authority. > > > > > Hi everyone ... > > > > Another welding question: soon I'll have finished welding all the > > major inside seams - the inside joins of the cabin and wheelhouse, the > > inside welding on the chines and centerline, the inside welding where > > the transom meets the hull sides, etc, etc. > > > > Next I'll be grinding the outside lengths of these seams so that the > > plates at the joins are nicely fair and flush with each other, and > > then welding the same seams on the outside. > > > > My question is: after welding the outside seams, should I then grind > > the weld right back so that the plates at the joins are again flush > > with each other? Would not doing so result in most of the outside > > welding behind ground off? Does that matter? Or should I leave a > > certain amount of the outside weld in place and not grind it all off? > > > > Sorry if this is a really basic question! But as I've said before, I'm > > a bit of a newbie to the wonderful world of steel boatbuilding, so any > > advice would be greatly appreciated. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Kim. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25668|25668|2011-03-31 06:32:37|normanbywaite|a second DVD|Hello, I bought Alex's first DVD set of the hull building. Did he ever do a second DVD of the fitting out? If so, can i buy a copy please? Cheers, Matt| 25669|25669|2011-03-31 06:40:40|normanbywaite|welding lesson|Hi Folks, Just got back from my first welding lesson. I have a client who is a boiler maker and i invited myself over for an arc (stick) welding lesson. He ran through a bunch of the theory, preparation and safety stuff, then had me make a few beads on some steel pieces he prepared. My welds were ugly messes, but i guess everyone's first few beads are. I got better later on, but still need much practice. I did best with what he called "stainless steel" welding rods, which looked thicker, like they just had way more flux on them. Anyhow, i'm on my way... What prompted this was the fact that the bloke i contracted to put some patches on my boat, and fabricate a few bits, just got too busy and couldn't get near my little jobs. I mean, i planned to learn to weld someday anyway, this just brought it forward. I'm off to the shops to buy some welding gear soon. I can't help the urge to dream about cutting off the keel and putting bilge keels on. But i'll resist temptation. Baby steps, baby steps... Cheers, Matt Melbourne, Australia| 25670|25669|2011-03-31 08:35:22|James Pronk|Re: welding lesson|Hello Matt The thing I always tell my students is there are for variables that you can control while welding. Heat- The amp you have your welder set at Height - Your arc gap or the distance from the end of you electrode to your work piece Speed - how fast you drag your electrode Angle - This is the angle that you hold your electrode to your work piece. There are two to watch, the Work Angle and the Travel Angle. I tell them to holding the electrode on a work angle that bisects the angle of your plate. On a flat  plate it would be 90 degrees, on a 90 degree inside corner it would be 45 degrees. The travel angle is the angle you drag your electrode on and it should be at about 75-80 degrees off the plate. I hope this helps, James   --- On Thu, 3/31/11, normanbywaite wrote: From: normanbywaite Subject: [origamiboats] welding lesson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Thursday, March 31, 2011, 6:40 AM   Hi Folks, Just got back from my first welding lesson. I have a client who is a boiler maker and i invited myself over for an arc (stick) welding lesson. He ran through a bunch of the theory, preparation and safety stuff, then had me make a few beads on some steel pieces he prepared. My welds were ugly messes, but i guess everyone's first few beads are. I got better later on, but still need much practice. I did best with what he called "stainless steel" welding rods, which looked thicker, like they just had way more flux on them. Anyhow, i'm on my way... What prompted this was the fact that the bloke i contracted to put some patches on my boat, and fabricate a few bits, just got too busy and couldn't get near my little jobs. I mean, i planned to learn to weld someday anyway, this just brought it forward. I'm off to the shops to buy some welding gear soon. I can't help the urge to dream about cutting off the keel and putting bilge keels on. But i'll resist temptation. Baby steps, baby steps... Cheers, Matt Melbourne, Australia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25671|25669|2011-03-31 10:48:44|David Frantz|Re: welding lesson|On welding; #1 it is a skill that takes time to develop. I can't stress this enough. Do not expect good quality welds the first time you grab a stinger. 2 Somebody already posted some good suggestions buy I think he missed one. That is you need to learn to look at the weld puddle. 3 Related to #2 above is the need to see what you are doing. For us old guys that means a good helment and glasses that allow you to see properly at welding distances. I find this to be a huge problem in my old age mainly because glasses and other visual aids force focus into narrow zones up close. 4. It is nice that you have somebody to help get you started but if you have problems picking up technique I'd suggest a welding class. There is a huge advantage to having somebody look over your shoulder and point out techniques that might help. Even better you should learn to judge weld quality as your safety is directly related to your ability to weld correctly. 5. Each welding process has it's positives and negatives but I've always found that stick welding is more difficult than mig welding. Maybe because I don't do stick welding often or maybe my coordination sucks. It might also have something to do with the constant electrode distance with mig. The problem is I can't recommend mig for boat build. At least not in the way most Origamis are done. 6. Since holding the stinger and feeding the electrode properly is critical to good welds I often attempt to steady my right hand (the hand holding the stinger) either with my other or by dragging across a solid object. The reality is that electrode can end up a good four feet from your shoulder, it takes little movement to cause that electrode to dance unacceptably. If you ever watch somebody doing fine tig welding they often rest their wrists on support to isolate movement. That is s little to slow for boat building but highlights that positioning of the body so that "you" are stable and able to control the stinger is very important. 7. Practice! It is the only way to build confidence and skill. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 31, 2011, at 6:40 AM, normanbywaite wrote: > Hi Folks, > Just got back from my first welding lesson. I have a client who is a boiler maker and i invited myself over for an arc (stick) welding lesson. > He ran through a bunch of the theory, preparation and safety stuff, then had me make a few beads on some steel pieces he prepared. > My welds were ugly messes, but i guess everyone's first few beads are. > I got better later on, but still need much practice. > I did best with what he called "stainless steel" welding rods, which looked thicker, like they just had way more flux on them. > Anyhow, i'm on my way... > > What prompted this was the fact that the bloke i contracted to put some patches on my boat, and fabricate a few bits, just got too busy and couldn't get near my little jobs. > I mean, i planned to learn to weld someday anyway, this just brought it forward. > I'm off to the shops to buy some welding gear soon. > > I can't help the urge to dream about cutting off the keel and putting bilge keels on. But i'll resist temptation. > Baby steps, baby steps... > > Cheers, > Matt > Melbourne, Australia > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 25672|25669|2011-03-31 13:11:27|Matt Malone|Re: welding lesson|Matt, I have had a welder for 12 years, as did my Dad for 20 years before that. I never got formal training. I struggled with second hand rods my Dad got, then new, but cheap 6011 and 6013 rods for a while, and, had made some decent welds, at times. I made some custom boat fittings, and with grinding and painting, they looked pretty pro. But these were small-ism pieces. I have trouble believing I could burn one rod after another on a continuous seam, using either of those rods, to make enough water-tight welds to keep a boat floating for a week. At my best, I would get 4-5 feet of good weld on my best projects, before I had a rough patch with ineffective, ugly welding. On an average project, I had all sorts of trouble starting the rod, keeping it going, and keeping it from sticking to the piece. Then I discovered 7018 rods. Wow. Totally different story. It is like they have welding auto-pilot built into them. (With fresh rods that have not absorbed moisture from the air, or have been rod-oven-dried) I am able to make beautiful welds every time. Every weld is smooth, strong, very satisfying. After burning 30lbs of rods, without a single spoiled rod, I am confident that with a buzz-box welder and 7018, I could make water-tight welds dependably enough to make a BS without spending half my time grinding out bad welds. Clearly there is a matter of skill and training, I will not pretend there is not, but some rods are much easier to use than others. After welding for weeks with 7018 and feeling like I had gotten really good at it, I tried some 6013 again, and quickly reminded myself, yes, the hand is more practiced now, but I am not that good. If you are going to start, buy the smallest box of 7018 you can get, and a high-quality, absolutely air-tight rod box, and start with that. You will see a lot more success sooner, and, with experience and training can try what I would call the more challenging rods later. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: matt@... Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:40:26 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] welding lesson Hi Folks, Just got back from my first welding lesson. I have a client who is a boiler maker and i invited myself over for an arc (stick) welding lesson. He ran through a bunch of the theory, preparation and safety stuff, then had me make a few beads on some steel pieces he prepared. My welds were ugly messes, but i guess everyone's first few beads are. I got better later on, but still need much practice. I did best with what he called "stainless steel" welding rods, which looked thicker, like they just had way more flux on them. Anyhow, i'm on my way... What prompted this was the fact that the bloke i contracted to put some patches on my boat, and fabricate a few bits, just got too busy and couldn't get near my little jobs. I mean, i planned to learn to weld someday anyway, this just brought it forward. I'm off to the shops to buy some welding gear soon. I can't help the urge to dream about cutting off the keel and putting bilge keels on. But i'll resist temptation. Baby steps, baby steps... Cheers, Matt Melbourne, Australia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25673|25669|2011-03-31 13:32:04|Carl Volkwein|Re: welding lesson|Is 7018 a rod for A.C. welders, or do you need D.C.? carlvolkwein --- On Thu, 3/31/11, Matt Malone wrote: From: Matt Malone Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, March 31, 2011, 1:11 PM Matt, I have had a welder for 12 years, as did my Dad for 20 years before that.   I never got formal training.   I struggled with second hand rods my Dad got, then new, but cheap 6011 and 6013 rods for a while, and, had made some decent welds, at times.  I made some custom boat fittings, and with grinding and painting, they looked pretty pro.  But these were small-ism pieces.   I have trouble believing I could burn one rod after another on a continuous seam, using either of those rods, to make enough water-tight welds to keep a boat floating for a week.  At my best, I would get 4-5 feet of good weld on my best projects, before I had a rough patch with ineffective, ugly welding.  On an average project, I had all sorts of trouble starting the rod, keeping it going, and keeping it from sticking to the piece.    Then I discovered 7018 rods.  Wow.  Totally different story.  It is like they have welding auto-pilot built into them. (With fresh rods that have not absorbed moisture from the air, or have been rod-oven-dried) I am able to make beautiful welds every time.   Every weld is smooth, strong, very satisfying.  After burning 30lbs of rods, without a single spoiled rod, I am confident that with a buzz-box welder and 7018, I could make water-tight welds dependably enough to make a BS without spending half my time grinding out bad welds.    Clearly there is a matter of skill and training, I will not pretend there is not, but some rods are much easier to use than others.   After welding for weeks with 7018 and feeling like I had gotten really good at it, I tried some 6013 again, and quickly reminded myself, yes, the hand is more practiced now, but I am not that good. If you are going to start, buy the smallest box of 7018 you can get, and a high-quality, absolutely air-tight rod box, and start with that.  You will see a lot more success sooner, and, with experience and training can try what I would call the more challenging rods later.    Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: matt@... Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:40:26 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] welding lesson                         Hi Folks, Just got back from my first welding lesson. I have a client who is a boiler maker and i invited myself over for an arc (stick) welding lesson. He ran through a bunch of the theory, preparation and safety stuff, then had me make a few beads on some steel pieces he prepared. My welds were ugly messes, but i guess everyone's first few beads are. I got better later on, but still need much practice. I did best with what he called "stainless steel" welding rods, which looked thicker, like they just had way more flux on them. Anyhow, i'm on my way... What prompted this was the fact that the bloke i contracted to put some patches on my boat, and fabricate a few bits, just got too busy and couldn't get near my little jobs. I mean, i planned to learn to weld someday anyway, this just brought it forward. I'm off to the shops to buy some welding gear soon. I can't help the urge to dream about cutting off the keel and putting bilge keels on. But i'll resist temptation. Baby steps, baby steps... Cheers, Matt Melbourne, Australia                                                [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] | 25674|25669|2011-03-31 13:48:55|James Pronk|Re: welding lesson|It burns well on AC but you need to take your time with it James --- On Thu, 3/31/11, Carl Volkwein wrote: From: Carl Volkwein Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Thursday, March 31, 2011, 1:31 PM   Is 7018 a rod for A.C. welders, or do you need D.C.? carlvolkwein --- On Thu, 3/31/11, Matt Malone wrote: From: Matt Malone Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, March 31, 2011, 1:11 PM Matt, I have had a welder for 12 years, as did my Dad for 20 years before that.   I never got formal training.   I struggled with second hand rods my Dad got, then new, but cheap 6011 and 6013 rods for a while, and, had made some decent welds, at times.  I made some custom boat fittings, and with grinding and painting, they looked pretty pro.  But these were small-ism pieces.   I have trouble believing I could burn one rod after another on a continuous seam, using either of those rods, to make enough water-tight welds to keep a boat floating for a week.  At my best, I would get 4-5 feet of good weld on my best projects, before I had a rough patch with ineffective, ugly welding.  On an average project, I had all sorts of trouble starting the rod, keeping it going, and keeping it from sticking to the piece.    Then I discovered 7018 rods.  Wow.  Totally different story.  It is like they have welding auto-pilot built into them. (With fresh rods that have not absorbed moisture from the air, or have been rod-oven-dried) I am able to make beautiful welds every time.   Every weld is smooth, strong, very satisfying.  After burning 30lbs of rods, without a single spoiled rod, I am confident that with a buzz-box welder and 7018, I could make water-tight welds dependably enough to make a BS without spending half my time grinding out bad welds.    Clearly there is a matter of skill and training, I will not pretend there is not, but some rods are much easier to use than others.   After welding for weeks with 7018 and feeling like I had gotten really good at it, I tried some 6013 again, and quickly reminded myself, yes, the hand is more practiced now, but I am not that good. If you are going to start, buy the smallest box of 7018 you can get, and a high-quality, absolutely air-tight rod box, and start with that.  You will see a lot more success sooner, and, with experience and training can try what I would call the more challenging rods later.    Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: matt@... Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:40:26 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] welding lesson                         Hi Folks, Just got back from my first welding lesson. I have a client who is a boiler maker and i invited myself over for an arc (stick) welding lesson. He ran through a bunch of the theory, preparation and safety stuff, then had me make a few beads on some steel pieces he prepared. My welds were ugly messes, but i guess everyone's first few beads are. I got better later on, but still need much practice. I did best with what he called "stainless steel" welding rods, which looked thicker, like they just had way more flux on them. Anyhow, i'm on my way... What prompted this was the fact that the bloke i contracted to put some patches on my boat, and fabricate a few bits, just got too busy and couldn't get near my little jobs. I mean, i planned to learn to weld someday anyway, this just brought it forward. I'm off to the shops to buy some welding gear soon. I can't help the urge to dream about cutting off the keel and putting bilge keels on. But i'll resist temptation. Baby steps, baby steps... Cheers, Matt Melbourne, Australia                                                [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] | 25675|25669|2011-03-31 13:58:23|brentswain38|Re: welding lesson|7024 are even easier , but only for horizontal welds. They work best on AC, 225 amps for a 1/8th inch rod. I suggest people get a pile of scrap and a box of rods, and just practice for hours ,getting your theory out of a book from the library. Welding courses are about 90% practice anyway, for the hand eye co-ordination, which you can easily do on your own. Getting your lens up close, and carefully watching the puddle form, speeds up the learning process. Watching a skilled welder weld, thru a spare helmet, also helps a lot. Dragging your rod a bit gets the metal burned up inside the flux, preventing sticking. If you see bare rod exposed beyond the flux , it will want to stick, and needs dragging a bit. When the rod is well burned up inside the flux it is far less likely to stick. When it is burned up inside the flux, you can hear the difference in sound, a bit more of a hollow sound. Sometimes with 7024, the flux sticks out too far to get the arc started. Then you have to tap it to get a bit of the excess flux off. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Matt, > > I have had a welder for 12 years, as did my Dad for 20 years before that. I never got formal training. I struggled with second hand rods my Dad got, then new, but cheap 6011 and 6013 rods for a while, and, had made some decent welds, at times. I made some custom boat fittings, and with grinding and painting, they looked pretty pro. But these were small-ism pieces. I have trouble believing I could burn one rod after another on a continuous seam, using either of those rods, to make enough water-tight welds to keep a boat floating for a week. At my best, I would get 4-5 feet of good weld on my best projects, before I had a rough patch with ineffective, ugly welding. On an average project, I had all sorts of trouble starting the rod, keeping it going, and keeping it from sticking to the piece. > > Then I discovered 7018 rods. Wow. Totally different story. It is like they have welding auto-pilot built into them. (With fresh rods that have not absorbed moisture from the air, or have been rod-oven-dried) I am able to make beautiful welds every time. Every weld is smooth, strong, very satisfying. After burning 30lbs of rods, without a single spoiled rod, I am confident that with a buzz-box welder and 7018, I could make water-tight welds dependably enough to make a BS without spending half my time grinding out bad welds. > > Clearly there is a matter of skill and training, I will not pretend there is not, but some rods are much easier to use than others. After welding for weeks with 7018 and feeling like I had gotten really good at it, I tried some 6013 again, and quickly reminded myself, yes, the hand is more practiced now, but I am not that good. > > If you are going to start, buy the smallest box of 7018 you can get, and a high-quality, absolutely air-tight rod box, and start with that. You will see a lot more success sooner, and, with experience and training can try what I would call the more challenging rods later. > > Matt > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: matt@... > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:40:26 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Folks, > > Just got back from my first welding lesson. I have a client who is a boiler maker and i invited myself over for an arc (stick) welding lesson. > > He ran through a bunch of the theory, preparation and safety stuff, then had me make a few beads on some steel pieces he prepared. > > My welds were ugly messes, but i guess everyone's first few beads are. > > I got better later on, but still need much practice. > > I did best with what he called "stainless steel" welding rods, which looked thicker, like they just had way more flux on them. > > Anyhow, i'm on my way... > > > > What prompted this was the fact that the bloke i contracted to put some patches on my boat, and fabricate a few bits, just got too busy and couldn't get near my little jobs. > > I mean, i planned to learn to weld someday anyway, this just brought it forward. > > I'm off to the shops to buy some welding gear soon. > > > > I can't help the urge to dream about cutting off the keel and putting bilge keels on. But i'll resist temptation. > > Baby steps, baby steps... > > > > Cheers, > > Matt > > Melbourne, Australia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25676|25668|2011-03-31 13:59:20|brentswain38|Re: a second DVD|Not that I'm aware of. You could email Alex directly. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "normanbywaite" wrote: > > Hello, > I bought Alex's first DVD set of the hull building. > Did he ever do a second DVD of the fitting out? > If so, can i buy a copy please? > Cheers, > Matt > | 25677|25669|2011-03-31 14:02:45|Matt Malone|Re: welding lesson|Carl, I am not sure what you "should" do, but I use 7018 on my AC welder. http://www.rodovens.com/welding_articles/welding_rods_application.htm These people seem to agree. When I was using it, it seemed to me it likes lots of amps too and these people say that too. With practice, I would hit long stretches where the weld surface was so smooth that, as I went, the slag curled up off the weld a few inches away, no chipping needed at all on the center of the weld. I would touch the margins with a grinder or wire brush to get rid of a minisule amount of slag that formed on the margins. Within a few minutes, I hit it with spray-primer, and man it was a beautiful thing. The entire cycle of burning a rod, cleaning this weld, and then priming the last weld suited the duty cycle of my buzz box at that high amperage. They say it is good for structural steel, and I have no doubt in the right hands it is. Wherever possible, I like to use welds like nails in framing a house -- the weld is taking only the stability loads, not the main weight of the structure. The main weight is taken by the way elements are stacked or layered. After that, I like to use them in shear, with large contact areas all around, on both sides. Only when there is no choice do I use a weld in tension, or with a small footing in shear. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: carlvolkwein@... Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:31:29 -0700 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson Is 7018 a rod for A.C. welders, or do you need D.C.? carlvolkwein --- On Thu, 3/31/11, Matt Malone wrote: From: Matt Malone Subject: RE: [origamiboats] welding lesson To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, March 31, 2011, 1:11 PM Matt, I have had a welder for 12 years, as did my Dad for 20 years before that. I never got formal training. I struggled with second hand rods my Dad got, then new, but cheap 6011 and 6013 rods for a while, and, had made some decent welds, at times. I made some custom boat fittings, and with grinding and painting, they looked pretty pro. But these were small-ism pieces. I have trouble believing I could burn one rod after another on a continuous seam, using either of those rods, to make enough water-tight welds to keep a boat floating for a week. At my best, I would get 4-5 feet of good weld on my best projects, before I had a rough patch with ineffective, ugly welding. On an average project, I had all sorts of trouble starting the rod, keeping it going, and keeping it from sticking to the piece. Then I discovered 7018 rods. Wow. Totally different story. It is like they have welding auto-pilot built into them. (With fresh rods that have not absorbed moisture from the air, or have been rod-oven-dried) I am able to make beautiful welds every time. Every weld is smooth, strong, very satisfying. After burning 30lbs of rods, without a single spoiled rod, I am confident that with a buzz-box welder and 7018, I could make water-tight welds dependably enough to make a BS without spending half my time grinding out bad welds. Clearly there is a matter of skill and training, I will not pretend there is not, but some rods are much easier to use than others. After welding for weeks with 7018 and feeling like I had gotten really good at it, I tried some 6013 again, and quickly reminded myself, yes, the hand is more practiced now, but I am not that good. If you are going to start, buy the smallest box of 7018 you can get, and a high-quality, absolutely air-tight rod box, and start with that. You will see a lot more success sooner, and, with experience and training can try what I would call the more challenging rods later. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: matt@... Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:40:26 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] welding lesson Hi Folks, Just got back from my first welding lesson. I have a client who is a boiler maker and i invited myself over for an arc (stick) welding lesson. He ran through a bunch of the theory, preparation and safety stuff, then had me make a few beads on some steel pieces he prepared. My welds were ugly messes, but i guess everyone's first few beads are. I got better later on, but still need much practice. I did best with what he called "stainless steel" welding rods, which looked thicker, like they just had way more flux on them. Anyhow, i'm on my way... What prompted this was the fact that the bloke i contracted to put some patches on my boat, and fabricate a few bits, just got too busy and couldn't get near my little jobs. I mean, i planned to learn to weld someday anyway, this just brought it forward. I'm off to the shops to buy some welding gear soon. I can't help the urge to dream about cutting off the keel and putting bilge keels on. But i'll resist temptation. Baby steps, baby steps... Cheers, Matt Melbourne, Australia [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] | 25678|25669|2011-03-31 15:45:38|Alan Boucher|Re: welding lesson|On 3/31/2011 1:58 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > 7024 are even easier , but only for horizontal welds. They work best > on AC, 225 amps for a 1/8th inch rod. > I suggest people get a pile of scrap and a box of rods, and just > practice for hours ,getting your theory out of a book from the > library. Welding courses are about 90% practice anyway, for the hand > eye co-ordination, which you can easily do on your own. Getting your > lens up close, and carefully watching the puddle form, speeds up the > learning process. Watching a skilled welder weld, thru a spare helmet, > also helps a lot. > Dragging your rod a bit gets the metal burned up inside the flux, > preventing sticking. If you see bare rod exposed beyond the flux , it > will want to stick, and needs dragging a bit. When the rod is well > burned up inside the flux it is far less likely to stick. When it is > burned up inside the flux, you can hear the difference in sound, a bit > more of a hollow sound. > Sometimes with 7024, the flux sticks out too far to get the arc > started. Then you have to tap it to get a bit of the excess flux off. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Matt Malone > wrote: > > > > > > > > Matt, > > > > I have had a welder for 12 years, as did my Dad for 20 years before > that. I never got formal training. I struggled with second hand rods > my Dad got, then new, but cheap 6011 and 6013 rods for a while, and, > had made some decent welds, at times. I made some custom boat > fittings, and with grinding and painting, they looked pretty pro. But > these were small-ism pieces. I have trouble believing I could burn one > rod after another on a continuous seam, using either of those rods, to > make enough water-tight welds to keep a boat floating for a week. At > my best, I would get 4-5 feet of good weld on my best projects, before > I had a rough patch with ineffective, ugly welding. On an average > project, I had all sorts of trouble starting the rod, keeping it > going, and keeping it from sticking to the piece. > > > > Then I discovered 7018 rods. Wow. Totally different story. It is > like they have welding auto-pilot built into them. (With fresh rods > that have not absorbed moisture from the air, or have been > rod-oven-dried) I am able to make beautiful welds every time. Every > weld is smooth, strong, very satisfying. After burning 30lbs of rods, > without a single spoiled rod, I am confident that with a buzz-box > welder and 7018, I could make water-tight welds dependably enough to > make a BS without spending half my time grinding out bad welds. > > > > Clearly there is a matter of skill and training, I will not pretend > there is not, but some rods are much easier to use than others. After > welding for weeks with 7018 and feeling like I had gotten really good > at it, I tried some 6013 again, and quickly reminded myself, yes, the > hand is more practiced now, but I am not that good. > > > > If you are going to start, buy the smallest box of 7018 you can get, > and a high-quality, absolutely air-tight rod box, and start with that. > You will see a lot more success sooner, and, with experience and > training can try what I would call the more challenging rods later. > > > > Matt > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: matt@... > > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:40:26 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] welding lesson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > Just got back from my first welding lesson. I have a client who is a > boiler maker and i invited myself over for an arc (stick) welding lesson. > > > > He ran through a bunch of the theory, preparation and safety stuff, > then had me make a few beads on some steel pieces he prepared. > > > > My welds were ugly messes, but i guess everyone's first few beads are. > > > > I got better later on, but still need much practice. > > > > I did best with what he called "stainless steel" welding rods, which > looked thicker, like they just had way more flux on them. > > > > Anyhow, i'm on my way... > > > > > > > > What prompted this was the fact that the bloke i contracted to put > some patches on my boat, and fabricate a few bits, just got too busy > and couldn't get near my little jobs. > > > > I mean, i planned to learn to weld someday anyway, this just brought > it forward. > > > > I'm off to the shops to buy some welding gear soon. > > > > > > > > I can't help the urge to dream about cutting off the keel and > putting bilge keels on. But i'll resist temptation. > > > > Baby steps, baby steps... > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Matt > > > > Melbourne, Australia > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > If you are in the US some high schools offer vocational training courses that cover all aspects of welding. Plenty of practice plus some helpful advice. Most cover stick, TIG and MIG. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25679|25679|2011-04-01 10:44:50|Ralph|Mast|Is a 5 1/2" 1/8" steel mast made out of three equal pieces of 15'4" length maybe more preferable then 20'+20'+6'?| 25680|25679|2011-04-01 10:58:13|Matt Malone|Re: Mast|All other things being equal, I would prefer to have one of the joins just above where spreaders and lower shrouds attach. One is going to be putting more into that area anyway, and it seems to be saving weight having one strong point there. Also, if one makes the sections so that they might come apart, then putting a joint just above the point where spreaders and shrouds attach leave the possibility of erecting or disassembling your mast in stages, using a gin pole, which may double as either your boom or spinnaker pole in regular use. Is 5 1/2" x 1/8 what Brent recommends ? For which boat ? I am interested because I still have not made my mast decision. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: dejongralph@... Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 14:44:18 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Mast Is a 5 1/2" 1/8" steel mast made out of three equal pieces of 15'4" length maybe more preferable then 20'+20'+6'? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25681|25679|2011-04-01 19:42:06|brentswain38|Re: Mast|',d go for the 20 ft lengths and put the 6 inch piece on the bottom. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > Is a 5 1/2" 1/8" steel mast made out of three equal pieces of 15'4" length maybe more preferable then 20'+20'+6'? > | 25682|25679|2011-04-01 20:01:35|Matt Malone|Re: Mast|Brent Do you have a reason for this preference ? I really do not know if your boats are deck stepped or keel stepped, but putting the 6' piece at the bottom, well, I guess puts the join in the cabin where you can watch it, but also, if there is a problem turns your keel-stepped into a nearly deck-stepped. (I considered this myself for my boat, but it would be intentional, knowing what I am doing.) Similarly, if the mast is deck stepped, it put the first join close to the deck where you can see it, which is something I guess. It however puts the join close to what seems at first glance the maximum lateral bending moment on the mast, just above where the boom attaches. If the join is good, well, no problem, and again, one can keep an eye on it. Problem is, it is not always a good idea to go forward. The top 6 feet of mast are under much lower bending moments and though one cannot monitor it as easily, even in the worst case, and one has a failure and loses the top 6 feet, it seems like a smaller problem. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 23:42:03 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Mast ',d go for the 20 ft lengths and put the 6 inch piece on the bottom. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > Is a 5 1/2" 1/8" steel mast made out of three equal pieces of 15'4" length maybe more preferable then 20'+20'+6'? > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25683|25679|2011-04-02 06:44:59|James Pronk|Re: Mast|I would hope that by the time someone is building the mast for the boat, thay should have some idea on how to weld. The Brent Swain 36 has about 300 hours of welding in it? If you are not making good weld at this point I think you will have a lot more to worry about then just the mast. That is just my 2 cents. James  --- On Fri, 4/1/11, Matt Malone wrote: From: Matt Malone Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Mast To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Friday, April 1, 2011, 8:01 PM Brent Do you have a reason for this preference ? I really do not know if your boats are deck stepped or keel stepped, but putting the 6' piece at the bottom, well, I guess puts the join in the cabin where you can watch it, but also, if there is a problem turns your keel-stepped into a nearly deck-stepped.   (I considered this myself for my boat, but it would be intentional, knowing what I am doing.)  Similarly, if the mast is deck stepped, it put the first join close to the deck where you can see it, which is something I guess.  It however puts the join close to what seems at first glance the maximum lateral bending moment on the mast,  just above where the boom attaches.  If the join is good, well, no problem, and again, one can keep an eye on it.  Problem is, it is not always a good idea to go forward.  The top 6 feet of mast are under much lower bending moments and though one cannot monitor it as easily, even in the worst case, and one has a failure and loses the top 6 feet, it seems like a smaller problem.  Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 23:42:03 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Mast                         ',d go for the 20 ft lengths and put the 6 inch piece on the bottom. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > Is a 5 1/2" 1/8" steel mast made out of three equal pieces of 15'4" length maybe more preferable then 20'+20'+6'? >                                                [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] | 25684|25679|2011-04-02 18:39:55|brentswain38|Re: Mast|All my masts are deck stepped. Putting it on the bottom puts the weight of the sleeve as low as possible.It also makes perfect alignment less necessary. I think anything under the tabernacle which can't be easily maintained , reached by a grinder, or reached by a paintbrush, should be covered in stainless. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Brent > > Do you have a reason for this preference ? > > I really do not know if your boats are deck stepped or keel stepped, but putting the 6' piece at the bottom, well, I guess puts the join in the cabin where you can watch it, but also, if there is a problem turns your keel-stepped into a nearly deck-stepped. (I considered this myself for my boat, but it would be intentional, knowing what I am doing.) Similarly, if the mast is deck stepped, it put the first join close to the deck where you can see it, which is something I guess. It however puts the join close to what seems at first glance the maximum lateral bending moment on the mast, just above where the boom attaches. If the join is good, well, no problem, and again, one can keep an eye on it. Problem is, it is not always a good idea to go forward. > > The top 6 feet of mast are under much lower bending moments and though one cannot monitor it as easily, even in the worst case, and one has a failure and loses the top 6 feet, it seems like a smaller problem. > > Matt > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 23:42:03 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Mast > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ',d go for the 20 ft lengths and put the 6 inch piece on the bottom. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > > > > > Is a 5 1/2" 1/8" steel mast made out of three equal pieces of 15'4" length maybe more preferable then 20'+20'+6'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25685|25679|2011-04-02 18:40:36|brentswain38|Re: Mast|Using a 2 to 1 scarf on this joint , making the weld length at least twice the circumference of the mast , makes the weld far less critical. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > I would hope that by the time someone is building the mast for the boat, thay should have some idea on how to weld. The Brent Swain 36 has about 300 hours of welding in it? If you are not making good weld at this point I think you will have a lot more to worry about then just the mast. > That is just my 2 cents. > James� > > --- On Fri, 4/1/11, Matt Malone wrote: > > > From: Matt Malone > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Mast > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Friday, April 1, 2011, 8:01 PM > > > > > Brent > > Do you have a reason for this preference ? > > I really do not know if your boats are deck stepped or keel stepped, but putting the 6' piece at the bottom, well, I guess puts the join in the cabin where you can watch it, but also, if there is a problem turns your keel-stepped into a nearly deck-stepped.���(I considered this myself for my boat, but it would be intentional, knowing what I am doing.)� Similarly, if the mast is deck stepped, it put the first join close to the deck where you can see it, which is something I guess.� It however puts the join close to what seems at first glance the maximum lateral bending moment on the mast,� just above where the boom attaches.� If the join is good, well, no problem, and again, one can keep an eye on it.� Problem is, it is not always a good idea to go forward.� > > The top 6 feet of mast are under much lower bending moments and though one cannot monitor it as easily, even in the worst case, and one has a failure and loses the top 6 feet, it seems like a smaller problem.� > > Matt > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 23:42:03 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Mast > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > � > > > � � > � � � > � � � > � � � ',d go for the 20 ft lengths and put the 6 inch piece on the bottom. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > > > > > Is a 5 1/2" 1/8" steel mast made out of three equal pieces of 15'4" length maybe more preferable then 20'+20'+6'? > > > > > > > > > � � > � ��� > > � � > � � > > > > > > > ������ �������� ������ ��� � > > [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] > | 25686|25679|2011-04-02 18:41:06|brentswain38|Re: Mast|Using a 2 to 1 scarf on this joint , making the weld length at least twice the circumference of the mast , makes the weld far less critical. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > I would hope that by the time someone is building the mast for the boat, thay should have some idea on how to weld. The Brent Swain 36 has about 300 hours of welding in it? If you are not making good weld at this point I think you will have a lot more to worry about then just the mast. > That is just my 2 cents. > James� > > --- On Fri, 4/1/11, Matt Malone wrote: > > > From: Matt Malone > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Mast > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Friday, April 1, 2011, 8:01 PM > > > > > Brent > > Do you have a reason for this preference ? > > I really do not know if your boats are deck stepped or keel stepped, but putting the 6' piece at the bottom, well, I guess puts the join in the cabin where you can watch it, but also, if there is a problem turns your keel-stepped into a nearly deck-stepped.���(I considered this myself for my boat, but it would be intentional, knowing what I am doing.)� Similarly, if the mast is deck stepped, it put the first join close to the deck where you can see it, which is something I guess.� It however puts the join close to what seems at first glance the maximum lateral bending moment on the mast,� just above where the boom attaches.� If the join is good, well, no problem, and again, one can keep an eye on it.� Problem is, it is not always a good idea to go forward.� > > The top 6 feet of mast are under much lower bending moments and though one cannot monitor it as easily, even in the worst case, and one has a failure and loses the top 6 feet, it seems like a smaller problem.� > > Matt > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 23:42:03 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Mast > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > � > > > � � > � � � > � � � > � � � ',d go for the 20 ft lengths and put the 6 inch piece on the bottom. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > > > > > Is a 5 1/2" 1/8" steel mast made out of three equal pieces of 15'4" length maybe more preferable then 20'+20'+6'? > > > > > > > > > � � > � ��� > > � � > � � > > > > > > > ������ �������� ������ ��� � > > [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] > | 25687|25679|2011-04-04 16:01:20|Ralph|Re: Mast|Brent, how does the scarf look like? Specially at the back side where the sail track goes. Thanks --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Using a 2 to 1 scarf on this joint , making the weld length at least twice the circumference of the mast , makes the weld far less critical. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > > > I would hope that by the time someone is building the mast for the boat, thay should have some idea on how to weld. The Brent Swain 36 has about 300 hours of welding in it? If you are not making good weld at this point I think you will have a lot more to worry about then just the mast. > > That is just my 2 cents. > > James� > > > > --- On Fri, 4/1/11, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > From: Matt Malone > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Mast > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Received: Friday, April 1, 2011, 8:01 PM > > > > > > > > > > Brent > > > > Do you have a reason for this preference ? > > > > I really do not know if your boats are deck stepped or keel stepped, but putting the 6' piece at the bottom, well, I guess puts the join in the cabin where you can watch it, but also, if there is a problem turns your keel-stepped into a nearly deck-stepped.���(I considered this myself for my boat, but it would be intentional, knowing what I am doing.)� Similarly, if the mast is deck stepped, it put the first join close to the deck where you can see it, which is something I guess.� It however puts the join close to what seems at first glance the maximum lateral bending moment on the mast,� just above where the boom attaches.� If the join is good, well, no problem, and again, one can keep an eye on it.� Problem is, it is not always a good idea to go forward.� > > > > The top 6 feet of mast are under much lower bending moments and though one cannot monitor it as easily, even in the worst case, and one has a failure and loses the top 6 feet, it seems like a smaller problem.� > > > > Matt > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: brentswain38@ > > Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 23:42:03 +0000 > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Mast > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > � > > > > > > � � > > � � � > > � � � > > � � � ',d go for the 20 ft lengths and put the 6 inch piece on the bottom. > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Is a 5 1/2" 1/8" steel mast made out of three equal pieces of 15'4" length maybe more preferable then 20'+20'+6'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > � � > > � ��� > > > > � � > > � � > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ������ �������� ������ ��� � > > > > [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] > > > | 25688|25679|2011-04-04 16:32:45|brentswain38|Re: Mast|I just rough cut the mast at a 2 to 1 angle, then lay a piece of half inch plate against it, and grind it to a close fit against the plate, until you can barely see daylight between the plate and the cut. Then I wrap a piece of cardboard around the cut tightly to make a pattern, to transfer the shape to the other side. With this cardboard duct taped tightly around the mast, I use the angle grinder to cut the cut edge to the shape of the scarf. Then I draw this shape on the other piece, and cut it out identically. Then I grind a bevel on one side for full penetration, and match the two sides up. With them fit well together, the mast should be straight. I weld a couple of pieces of plate on edge across the joint to keep it straight while welding. Then I do one inch welds, with 1/8th 6011,and let each cool before puting another one next to it. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > Brent, how does the scarf look like? Specially at the back side where the sail track goes. Thanks > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Using a 2 to 1 scarf on this joint , making the weld length at least twice the circumference of the mast , makes the weld far less critical. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > > > > > I would hope that by the time someone is building the mast for the boat, thay should have some idea on how to weld. The Brent Swain 36 has about 300 hours of welding in it? If you are not making good weld at this point I think you will have a lot more to worry about then just the mast. > > > That is just my 2 cents. > > > James� > > > > > > --- On Fri, 4/1/11, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Matt Malone > > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Mast > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Received: Friday, April 1, 2011, 8:01 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent > > > > > > Do you have a reason for this preference ? > > > > > > I really do not know if your boats are deck stepped or keel stepped, but putting the 6' piece at the bottom, well, I guess puts the join in the cabin where you can watch it, but also, if there is a problem turns your keel-stepped into a nearly deck-stepped.���(I considered this myself for my boat, but it would be intentional, knowing what I am doing.)� Similarly, if the mast is deck stepped, it put the first join close to the deck where you can see it, which is something I guess.� It however puts the join close to what seems at first glance the maximum lateral bending moment on the mast,� just above where the boom attaches.� If the join is good, well, no problem, and again, one can keep an eye on it.� Problem is, it is not always a good idea to go forward.� > > > > > > The top 6 feet of mast are under much lower bending moments and though one cannot monitor it as easily, even in the worst case, and one has a failure and loses the top 6 feet, it seems like a smaller problem.� > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 23:42:03 +0000 > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Mast > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > � > > > > > > > > > � � > > > � � � > > > � � � > > > � � � ',d go for the 20 ft lengths and put the 6 inch piece on the bottom. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is a 5 1/2" 1/8" steel mast made out of three equal pieces of 15'4" length maybe more preferable then 20'+20'+6'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > � � > > > � ��� > > > > > > � � > > > � � > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ������ �������� ������ ��� � > > > > > > [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] > > > > > > | 25689|25679|2011-04-05 02:22:59|Ralph|Re: Mast|That's clear, Thanks --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I just rough cut the mast at a 2 to 1 angle, then lay a piece of half inch plate against it, and grind it to a close fit against the plate, until you can barely see daylight between the plate and the cut. > Then I wrap a piece of cardboard around the cut tightly to make a pattern, to transfer the shape to the other side. With this cardboard duct taped tightly around the mast, I use the angle grinder to cut the cut edge to the shape of the scarf. Then I draw this shape on the other piece, and cut it out identically. Then I grind a bevel on one side for full penetration, and match the two sides up. With them fit well together, the mast should be straight. I weld a couple of pieces of plate on edge across the joint to keep it straight while welding. > Then I do one inch welds, with 1/8th 6011,and let each cool before puting another one next to it. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > > > Brent, how does the scarf look like? Specially at the back side where the sail track goes. Thanks > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > Using a 2 to 1 scarf on this joint , making the weld length at least twice the circumference of the mast , makes the weld far less critical. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > > > > > > > I would hope that by the time someone is building the mast for the boat, thay should have some idea on how to weld. The Brent Swain 36 has about 300 hours of welding in it? If you are not making good weld at this point I think you will have a lot more to worry about then just the mast. > > > > That is just my 2 cents. > > > > James� > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 4/1/11, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Matt Malone > > > > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: Mast > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > Received: Friday, April 1, 2011, 8:01 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brent > > > > > > > > Do you have a reason for this preference ? > > > > > > > > I really do not know if your boats are deck stepped or keel stepped, but putting the 6' piece at the bottom, well, I guess puts the join in the cabin where you can watch it, but also, if there is a problem turns your keel-stepped into a nearly deck-stepped.���(I considered this myself for my boat, but it would be intentional, knowing what I am doing.)� Similarly, if the mast is deck stepped, it put the first join close to the deck where you can see it, which is something I guess.� It however puts the join close to what seems at first glance the maximum lateral bending moment on the mast,� just above where the boom attaches.� If the join is good, well, no problem, and again, one can keep an eye on it.� Problem is, it is not always a good idea to go forward.� > > > > > > > > The top 6 feet of mast are under much lower bending moments and though one cannot monitor it as easily, even in the worst case, and one has a failure and loses the top 6 feet, it seems like a smaller problem.� > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > From: brentswain38@ > > > > Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 23:42:03 +0000 > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Mast > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > � > > > > > > > > > > > > � � > > > > � � � > > > > � � � > > > > � � � ',d go for the 20 ft lengths and put the 6 inch piece on the bottom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Ralph" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is a 5 1/2" 1/8" steel mast made out of three equal pieces of 15'4" length maybe more preferable then 20'+20'+6'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > � � > > > > � ��� > > > > > > > > � � > > > > � � > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ������ �������� ������ ��� � > > > > > > > > [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] > > > > > > > > > > | 25690|25690|2011-04-06 19:52:20|Mark Hamill|Any builders in the Sacramento area??|I saw this in the online magazine Latitude 38--the area code is for Sacramento--if any Origami builders live in that area it might be worth looking at. ANCHORS, WINCHES AND STUFF $500 5 anchors, 7 winches, miscellaneous pulleys, 3 and 4 inch exhaust hoses and some starters and distributors for Atomic 4 and Palmer 4 cylinder engines. Health forces sale. TAKE IT ALL! (916) 777-5510 03/18/2011 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25691|25691|2011-04-07 10:48:56|Doug - SubmarineBoat.com|Thrust Bearing|I need a thrust bearing just inside the skeg for a 1 1/2 to 2" shaft. Something that I can bolt a U-joint shaft to is all I need, but I'm not having much luck finding sources. Any recommendations? Thanks Doug| 25692|25691|2011-04-07 11:10:38|Matt Malone|Re: Thrust Bearing|Canadian Bearings: http://www.canadianbearings.com/DeliverMore/ They have had everything I have ever looked for, including parts to fit a English tractor from 1949, where the bearing surfaces had been randomly re-ground to remove damage and reuse old parts that are even harder to find. Just know the size you want, to the thousandths of an inch. If they do not have it, I would predict it does not exist, or will be very expensive. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: svseeker@... Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:48:46 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Thrust Bearing I need a thrust bearing just inside the skeg for a 1 1/2 to 2" shaft. Something that I can bolt a U-joint shaft to is all I need, but I'm not having much luck finding sources. Any recommendations? Thanks Doug [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25693|25691|2011-04-07 11:48:19|Gord Schnell|Re: Thrust Bearing|Doug For what it's worth: I'm using the hub assembly from the front axle of a Jeep Cherokee (Dana 30 differential). It requires splining and threading the inner end of the prop shaft (to match a front axle) and providing a substantial plate to bolt the hub to. The bearings are sealed, the hubs are available worldwide, the installation is easy. Gord On 2011-04-07, at 7:48 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > I need a thrust bearing just inside the skeg for a 1 1/2 to 2" shaft. Something that I can bolt a U-joint shaft to is all I need, but I'm not having much luck finding sources. Any recommendations? > > Thanks > Doug > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25694|25691|2011-04-07 12:18:13|Doug Jackson|Re: Thrust Bearing|That's nice idea Gord. We've just scrapped another school bus for it's Cummins and transmission and I've been staring at the thrust bearings on it's wheels but don't think I can make those work without a lot of cutting on the rear axle hub. So you have something like the axle in this photo? http://www.fourwheeler.com/projectbuild/129_0804_jeep_grand_cherokee_front_axle/photo_08.html Do you have a photo of your setup? How did you couple the prop shaft to the wheel lugs? I planning on using the dive line off the bus. Maybe I can just replace the u-joint yoke on the drive shaft going toward the transmission with the yoke from the Cherokee axle. That should be able to handle 220 Hp, don't you think? Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Gord Schnell To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 10:48:18 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Thrust Bearing Doug For what it's worth: I'm using the hub assembly from the front axle of a Jeep Cherokee (Dana 30 differential). It requires splining and threading the inner end of the prop shaft (to match a front axle) and providing a substantial plate to bolt the hub to. The bearings are sealed, the hubs are available worldwide, the installation is easy. Gord On 2011-04-07, at 7:48 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > I need a thrust bearing just inside the skeg for a 1 1/2 to 2" shaft. Something >that I can bolt a U-joint shaft to is all I need, but I'm not having much luck >finding sources. Any recommendations? > > > Thanks > 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] | 25695|25695|2011-04-07 13:03:50|martin|Boom Material|Hi All: I'm trying to track down some material for Prairie Maid's boom. I've already built the goose neck and connector to go around the mast. Now I'm looking at a 4in X 3in X 1/4in piece of alunimum hopefully with a rounded corner profile for the boom. What I need to know is, is this size of material going to do the job for the 36ft.B.S. or do I need to go bigger. Thanks Martin..| 25696|25691|2011-04-07 13:47:07|Gord Schnell|Re: Thrust Bearing|Doug The nice thing about the jeep units is they are a "cassette" (complete, self-contained and lubricated) On the Jeep, the axle is inserted into the carrier (center portion of the axle assembly). The bearing (we are referring to) slides onto a spline on the outer end of the axle and bolts to the suspension arm with three 1/2" hardened bolts. SO....if you build a reinforced plate at the forward end of your propshaft, to hold the bearing assembly, you can slide the propshaft in thru the rear of the skeg, (thru the aft propshaft (cutless) bearing), and into the thrust bearing (Jeep outer front axle bearing) and put a retaining nut on the propshaft, forward of the bearing. The propshaft installation is complete. Removal is equally easy. Gord PS: This assembly was taken from a '93 Jeep Cherokee XJ (4x4) using a Dana 30 front axle. On 2011-04-07, at 9:18 AM, Doug Jackson wrote: > That's nice idea Gord. We've just scrapped another school bus for it's Cummins > and transmission and I've been staring at the thrust bearings on it's wheels but > don't think I can make those work without a lot of cutting on the rear axle > hub. > > So you have something like the axle in this photo? > http://www.fourwheeler.com/projectbuild/129_0804_jeep_grand_cherokee_front_axle/photo_08.html > > Do you have a photo of your setup? How did you couple the prop shaft to the > wheel lugs? > > I planning on using the dive line off the bus. Maybe I can just replace the > u-joint yoke on the drive shaft going toward the transmission with the yoke from > the Cherokee axle. > > That should be able to handle 220 Hp, don't you think? > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > ________________________________ > From: Gord Schnell > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 10:48:18 AM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Thrust Bearing > > Doug > For what it's worth: I'm using the hub assembly from the front axle of a Jeep > Cherokee (Dana 30 differential). It requires splining and threading the inner > end of the prop shaft (to match a front axle) and providing a substantial plate > to bolt the hub to. The bearings are sealed, the hubs are available worldwide, > the installation is easy. > Gord > > On 2011-04-07, at 7:48 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > I need a thrust bearing just inside the skeg for a 1 1/2 to 2" shaft. Something > >that I can bolt a U-joint shaft to is all I need, but I'm not having much luck > >finding sources. Any recommendations? > > > > > > Thanks > > 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] | 25697|25691|2011-04-07 14:47:12|Matt Malone|Re: Thrust Bearing|Thanks Gord, Using a truck part seems like a much better idea. The spline might be allowing for slight end-wise movement -- good for accommodating the vibration of the engine, both in the Jeep and on the boat. Matt > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: gschnell@... > Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 10:46:56 -0700 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Thrust Bearing > > Doug > The nice thing about the jeep units is they are a "cassette" (complete, self-contained and lubricated) On the Jeep, the axle is inserted into the carrier (center portion of the axle assembly). The bearing (we are referring to) slides onto a spline on the outer end of the axle and bolts to the suspension arm with three 1/2" hardened bolts. SO....if you build a reinforced plate at the forward end of your propshaft, to hold the bearing assembly, you can slide the propshaft in thru the rear of the skeg, (thru the aft propshaft (cutless) bearing), and into the thrust bearing (Jeep outer front axle bearing) and put a retaining nut on the propshaft, forward of the bearing. The propshaft installation is complete. Removal is equally easy. > Gord > PS: This assembly was taken from a '93 Jeep Cherokee XJ (4x4) using a Dana 30 front axle. > On 2011-04-07, at 9:18 AM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > That's nice idea Gord. We've just scrapped another school bus for it's Cummins > > and transmission and I've been staring at the thrust bearings on it's wheels but > > don't think I can make those work without a lot of cutting on the rear axle > > hub. > > > > So you have something like the axle in this photo? > > http://www.fourwheeler.com/projectbuild/129_0804_jeep_grand_cherokee_front_axle/photo_08.html > > > > Do you have a photo of your setup? How did you couple the prop shaft to the > > wheel lugs? > > > > I planning on using the dive line off the bus. Maybe I can just replace the > > u-joint yoke on the drive shaft going toward the transmission with the yoke from > > the Cherokee axle. > > > > That should be able to handle 220 Hp, don't you think? > > > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Gord Schnell > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 10:48:18 AM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Thrust Bearing > > > > Doug > > For what it's worth: I'm using the hub assembly from the front axle of a Jeep > > Cherokee (Dana 30 differential). It requires splining and threading the inner > > end of the prop shaft (to match a front axle) and providing a substantial plate > > to bolt the hub to. The bearings are sealed, the hubs are available worldwide, > > the installation is easy. > > Gord > > > > On 2011-04-07, at 7:48 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > > I need a thrust bearing just inside the skeg for a 1 1/2 to 2" shaft. Something > > >that I can bolt a U-joint shaft to is all I need, but I'm not having much luck > > >finding sources. Any recommendations? > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Doug [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25698|25691|2011-04-07 15:04:49|Doug Jackson|Re: Thrust Bearing|Yes, thanks. There's a Jeep junk yard just block from my house. I'll visit them tomorrow and see what they have. They build rock crawlers too so they should know something about the tork limits too. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Matt Malone To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 1:47:04 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Thrust Bearing Thanks Gord, Using a truck part seems like a much better idea. The spline might be allowing for slight end-wise movement -- good for accommodating the vibration of the engine, both in the Jeep and on the boat. Matt > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: gschnell@... > Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 10:46:56 -0700 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Thrust Bearing > > Doug > The nice thing about the jeep units is they are a "cassette" (complete, >self-contained and lubricated) On the Jeep, the axle is inserted into the >carrier (center portion of the axle assembly). The bearing (we are referring to) >slides onto a spline on the outer end of the axle and bolts to the suspension >arm with three 1/2" hardened bolts. SO....if you build a reinforced plate at the >forward end of your propshaft, to hold the bearing assembly, you can slide the >propshaft in thru the rear of the skeg, (thru the aft propshaft (cutless) >bearing), and into the thrust bearing (Jeep outer front axle bearing) and put a >retaining nut on the propshaft, forward of the bearing. The propshaft >installation is complete. Removal is equally easy. > Gord > PS: This assembly was taken from a '93 Jeep Cherokee XJ (4x4) using a Dana 30 >front axle. > On 2011-04-07, at 9:18 AM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > That's nice idea Gord. We've just scrapped another school bus for it's >Cummins > > > and transmission and I've been staring at the thrust bearings on it's wheels >but > > > don't think I can make those work without a lot of cutting on the rear axle > > hub. > > > > So you have something like the axle in this photo? > > >http://www.fourwheeler.com/projectbuild/129_0804_jeep_grand_cherokee_front_axle/photo_08.html > > > > > Do you have a photo of your setup? How did you couple the prop shaft to the > > wheel lugs? > > > > I planning on using the dive line off the bus. Maybe I can just replace the > > u-joint yoke on the drive shaft going toward the transmission with the yoke >from > > > the Cherokee axle. > > > > That should be able to handle 220 Hp, don't you think? > > > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Gord Schnell > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 10:48:18 AM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Thrust Bearing > > > > Doug > > For what it's worth: I'm using the hub assembly from the front axle of a Jeep > > > Cherokee (Dana 30 differential). It requires splining and threading the inner > > > end of the prop shaft (to match a front axle) and providing a substantial >plate > > > to bolt the hub to. The bearings are sealed, the hubs are available >worldwide, > > > the installation is easy. > > Gord > > > > On 2011-04-07, at 7:48 AM, Doug - SubmarineBoat.com wrote: > > > > > I need a thrust bearing just inside the skeg for a 1 1/2 to 2" shaft. >Something > > > >that I can bolt a U-joint shaft to is all I need, but I'm not having much >luck > > > >finding sources. Any recommendations? > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Doug [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25699|25699|2011-04-07 19:45:59|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|boom lenght|Hi Brent, What boom lenght do you suggest on your BS36? Martin.| 25700|25699|2011-04-07 20:28:39|martin demers|Re: boom lenght|Brent, there is an old wooden boom that came with my boat(37ft steel classic) and it was 16ft long. I want to compare with what you suggest for your boat. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mdemers2005@... Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:45:58 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] boom lenght Hi Brent, What boom lenght do you suggest on your BS36? Martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25701|25691|2011-04-07 22:05:11|brentswain38|Re: Thrust Bearing|A tapered roller bearing ( standard wheel bearing)will take a lot of thrust, You can go slightly over sized and machine a sleeve to take it to whatever size you want. . A deep groove ball bearing will take half it's radial load in thrust. They come with self aligning pillow blocks. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Doug - SubmarineBoat.com" wrote: > > I need a thrust bearing just inside the skeg for a 1 1/2 to 2" shaft. Something that I can bolt a U-joint shaft to is all I need, but I'm not having much luck finding sources. Any recommendations? > > Thanks > Doug > | 25702|25695|2011-04-07 22:10:07|brentswain38|Re: Boom Material|Looks a bit small. A 6 inch OD with a 1/8th wall would do. You can find it sometimes in scrapyards. The 5 inch OD with a 1/8th inch wall cost me $11 in a scrapyard. Don't spend a lot on a boom, as anything will do til you find something better, at a good price. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "martin" wrote: > > Hi All: I'm trying to track down some material for Prairie Maid's boom. I've already built the goose neck and connector to go around the mast. Now I'm looking at a 4in X 3in X 1/4in piece of alunimum hopefully with a rounded corner profile for the boom. What I need to know is, is this size of material going to do the job for the 36ft.B.S. or do I need to go bigger. Thanks Martin.. > | 25703|25699|2011-04-07 22:13:03|brentswain38|Re: boom lenght|I don't have the drawings with me at the moment, but I believe it is 16 feet. It should just clear the backstay by about three inches in a Chinese gybe, with the boom 90 degrees to the backstay. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Hi Brent, > > What boom lenght do you suggest on your BS36? > > Martin. > | 25704|25691|2011-04-08 13:07:01|Doug Jackson|Re: Thrust Bearing|Right; tapered roller bearings are whats in the front hub. A Dana Model 30 Front Axle 1987-1995 Jeep Wrangler YJ also has a build in disconnect that uses a push pull cable or a vacuum motor that is mounted to the axel tube where it operates a dog clutch to disconnect the two piece axel between the hub and the differential. I'll just need to cut away the differential and set a bearing in the differential end of the axel tube. Then adapt the axle splines that normally entered the differential to connect the drive shaft u-joint yoke going on up to the engine. Does anyone ever use a sear pin on the dive line so damage is limited when the prop hits something solid? Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 9:05:10 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing A tapered roller bearing ( standard wheel bearing)will take a lot of thrust, You can go slightly over sized and machine a sleeve to take it to whatever size you want. . A deep groove ball bearing will take half it's radial load in thrust. They come with self aligning pillow blocks. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Doug - SubmarineBoat.com" wrote: > > I need a thrust bearing just inside the skeg for a 1 1/2 to 2" shaft. Something >that I can bolt a U-joint shaft to is all I need, but I'm not having much luck >finding sources. Any recommendations? > > > Thanks > Doug > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25705|25691|2011-04-08 13:12:39|Gord Schnell|Re: Thrust Bearing|Your right, Doug. I had forgotten about the disconnect feature.....I'm using a self-feathering prop, so it never crossed my mind. Gord On 2011-04-08, at 10:06 AM, Doug Jackson wrote: > Right; tapered roller bearings are whats in the front hub. > > A Dana Model 30 Front Axle 1987-1995 Jeep Wrangler YJ also has a build in > disconnect that uses a push pull cable or a vacuum motor that is mounted to the > axel tube where it operates a dog clutch to disconnect the two piece axel > between the hub and the differential. I'll just need to cut away the > differential and set a bearing in the differential end of the axel tube. Then > adapt the axle splines that normally entered the differential to connect the > drive shaft u-joint yoke going on up to the engine. > > Does anyone ever use a sear pin on the dive line so damage is limited when the > prop hits something solid? > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > ________________________________ > From: brentswain38 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 9:05:10 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing > > A tapered roller bearing ( standard wheel bearing)will take a lot of thrust, You > can go slightly over sized and machine a sleeve to take it to whatever size you > want. . > A deep groove ball bearing will take half it's radial load in thrust. They come > with self aligning pillow blocks. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Doug - SubmarineBoat.com" > wrote: > > > > I need a thrust bearing just inside the skeg for a 1 1/2 to 2" shaft. Something > >that I can bolt a U-joint shaft to is all I need, but I'm not having much luck > >finding sources. Any recommendations? > > > > > > Thanks > > Doug > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25706|25691|2011-04-08 14:50:24|Matt Malone|Re: Thrust Bearing|Shear pin in the driveline .... excellent idea ! One can always put a stronger pin in, if it becomes troublesome. Matt -------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: svseeker@... Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 10:06:52 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing .... Does anyone ever use a sear pin on the dive line so damage is limited when the prop hits something solid? Doug ArgonautJr.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25707|25691|2011-04-08 16:44:23|Doug Jackson|Re: Thrust Bearing|Hey Gord, about how much torque are you putting on your prop? Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Gord Schnell To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, April 8, 2011 12:12:37 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing Your right, Doug. I had forgotten about the disconnect feature.....I'm using a self-feathering prop, so it never crossed my mind. Gord On 2011-04-08, at 10:06 AM, Doug Jackson wrote: > Right; tapered roller bearings are whats in the front hub. > > A Dana Model 30 Front Axle 1987-1995 Jeep Wrangler YJ also has a build in > disconnect that uses a push pull cable or a vacuum motor that is mounted to the > > axel tube where it operates a dog clutch to disconnect the two piece axel > between the hub and the differential. I'll just need to cut away the > differential and set a bearing in the differential end of the axel tube. Then > adapt the axle splines that normally entered the differential to connect the > drive shaft u-joint yoke going on up to the engine. > > Does anyone ever use a sear pin on the dive line so damage is limited when the > prop hits something solid? > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > ________________________________ > From: brentswain38 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 9:05:10 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing > > A tapered roller bearing ( standard wheel bearing)will take a lot of thrust, >You > > can go slightly over sized and machine a sleeve to take it to whatever size you > > want. . > A deep groove ball bearing will take half it's radial load in thrust. They come > > with self aligning pillow blocks. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Doug - SubmarineBoat.com" > wrote: > > > > I need a thrust bearing just inside the skeg for a 1 1/2 to 2" shaft. >Something > > >that I can bolt a U-joint shaft to is all I need, but I'm not having much luck > > >finding sources. Any recommendations? > > > > > > Thanks > > Doug > > > > [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] | 25708|25691|2011-04-08 18:57:36|Aaron Williams|Re: Thrust Bearing|Doug Is this disconect something that one could disconect the shaft from the engine then the prop would free wheel and then be run with an electric motor? Aaron ________________________________ From: Gord Schnell To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, April 8, 2011 9:12:37 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing Your right, Doug. I had forgotten about the disconnect feature.....I'm using a self-feathering prop, so it never crossed my mind. Gord On 2011-04-08, at 10:06 AM, Doug Jackson wrote: > Right; tapered roller bearings are whats in the front hub. > > A Dana Model 30 Front Axle 1987-1995 Jeep Wrangler YJ also has a build in > disconnect that uses a push pull cable or a vacuum motor that is mounted to the > > axel tube where it operates a dog clutch to disconnect the two piece axel > between the hub and the differential. I'll just need to cut away the > differential and set a bearing in the differential end of the axel tube. Then > adapt the axle splines that normally entered the differential to connect the > drive shaft u-joint yoke going on up to the engine. > > Does anyone ever use a sear pin on the dive line so damage is limited when the > prop hits something solid? > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > ________________________________ > From: brentswain38 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 9:05:10 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing > > A tapered roller bearing ( standard wheel bearing)will take a lot of thrust, >You > > can go slightly over sized and machine a sleeve to take it to whatever size you > > want. . > A deep groove ball bearing will take half it's radial load in thrust. They come > > with self aligning pillow blocks. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Doug - SubmarineBoat.com" > wrote: > > > > I need a thrust bearing just inside the skeg for a 1 1/2 to 2" shaft. >Something > > >that I can bolt a U-joint shaft to is all I need, but I'm not having much luck > > >finding sources. Any recommendations? > > > > > > Thanks > > Doug > > > > [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] | 25709|25691|2011-04-08 19:21:25|Doug Jackson|Re: Thrust Bearing|Yes, but there needs to be a sprocket added that allows a motor/generator to be added to the shaft. Maybe a pulley could be bolted on where the wheel normally goes. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Aaron Williams To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, April 8, 2011 5:57:34 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing Doug Is this disconect something that one could disconect the shaft from the engine then the prop would free wheel and then be run with an electric motor? Aaron ________________________________ From: Gord Schnell To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, April 8, 2011 9:12:37 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing Your right, Doug. I had forgotten about the disconnect feature.....I'm using a self-feathering prop, so it never crossed my mind. Gord On 2011-04-08, at 10:06 AM, Doug Jackson wrote: > Right; tapered roller bearings are whats in the front hub. > > A Dana Model 30 Front Axle 1987-1995 Jeep Wrangler YJ also has a build in > disconnect that uses a push pull cable or a vacuum motor that is mounted to the > > > axel tube where it operates a dog clutch to disconnect the two piece axel > between the hub and the differential. I'll just need to cut away the > differential and set a bearing in the differential end of the axel tube. Then > adapt the axle splines that normally entered the differential to connect the > drive shaft u-joint yoke going on up to the engine. > > Does anyone ever use a sear pin on the dive line so damage is limited when the > prop hits something solid? > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > ________________________________ > From: brentswain38 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 9:05:10 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing > > A tapered roller bearing ( standard wheel bearing)will take a lot of thrust, >You > > can go slightly over sized and machine a sleeve to take it to whatever size you > > > want. . > A deep groove ball bearing will take half it's radial load in thrust. They come > > > with self aligning pillow blocks. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Doug - SubmarineBoat.com" > wrote: > > > > I need a thrust bearing just inside the skeg for a 1 1/2 to 2" shaft. >Something > > >that I can bolt a U-joint shaft to is all I need, but I'm not having much luck > > > >finding sources. Any recommendations? > > > > > > Thanks > > Doug > > > > [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] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25710|25691|2011-04-08 19:53:10|Gord Schnell|Re: Thrust Bearing|Doug To be completely honest....I don't know....but with my "trusty little 1.6L diesel....not much. Gord On 2011-04-08, at 1:44 PM, Doug Jackson wrote: > Hey Gord, about how much torque are you putting on your prop? > > Doug > ArgonautJr.com > > ________________________________ > From: Gord Schnell > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Fri, April 8, 2011 12:12:37 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing > > Your right, Doug. I had forgotten about the disconnect feature.....I'm using a > self-feathering prop, so it never crossed my mind. > Gord > > On 2011-04-08, at 10:06 AM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > Right; tapered roller bearings are whats in the front hub. > > > > A Dana Model 30 Front Axle 1987-1995 Jeep Wrangler YJ also has a build in > > disconnect that uses a push pull cable or a vacuum motor that is mounted to the > > > > axel tube where it operates a dog clutch to disconnect the two piece axel > > between the hub and the differential. I'll just need to cut away the > > differential and set a bearing in the differential end of the axel tube. Then > > adapt the axle splines that normally entered the differential to connect the > > drive shaft u-joint yoke going on up to the engine. > > > > Does anyone ever use a sear pin on the dive line so damage is limited when the > > > prop hits something solid? > > > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > ________________________________ > > From: brentswain38 > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 9:05:10 PM > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing > > > > A tapered roller bearing ( standard wheel bearing)will take a lot of thrust, > >You > > > > can go slightly over sized and machine a sleeve to take it to whatever size you > > > > want. . > > A deep groove ball bearing will take half it's radial load in thrust. They come > > > > with self aligning pillow blocks. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Doug - SubmarineBoat.com" > > > wrote: > > > > > > I need a thrust bearing just inside the skeg for a 1 1/2 to 2" shaft. > >Something > > > > >that I can bolt a U-joint shaft to is all I need, but I'm not having much luck > > > > >finding sources. Any recommendations? > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Doug > > > > > > > [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] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25711|25691|2011-04-08 19:54:07|Gord Schnell|Re: Thrust Bearing|I supose you could....but why? Gord On 2011-04-08, at 3:57 PM, Aaron Williams wrote: > Doug > > Is this disconect something that one could disconect the shaft from the engine > then the prop would free wheel and then be run with an electric motor? > Aaron > > ________________________________ > From: Gord Schnell > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Fri, April 8, 2011 9:12:37 AM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing > > Your right, Doug. I had forgotten about the disconnect feature.....I'm using a > self-feathering prop, so it never crossed my mind. > Gord > > On 2011-04-08, at 10:06 AM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > Right; tapered roller bearings are whats in the front hub. > > > > A Dana Model 30 Front Axle 1987-1995 Jeep Wrangler YJ also has a build in > > disconnect that uses a push pull cable or a vacuum motor that is mounted to the > > > > axel tube where it operates a dog clutch to disconnect the two piece axel > > between the hub and the differential. I'll just need to cut away the > > differential and set a bearing in the differential end of the axel tube. Then > > adapt the axle splines that normally entered the differential to connect the > > drive shaft u-joint yoke going on up to the engine. > > > > Does anyone ever use a sear pin on the dive line so damage is limited when the > > > prop hits something solid? > > > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > ________________________________ > > From: brentswain38 > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 9:05:10 PM > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing > > > > A tapered roller bearing ( standard wheel bearing)will take a lot of thrust, > >You > > > > can go slightly over sized and machine a sleeve to take it to whatever size you > > > > want. . > > A deep groove ball bearing will take half it's radial load in thrust. They come > > > > with self aligning pillow blocks. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Doug - SubmarineBoat.com" > > > wrote: > > > > > > I need a thrust bearing just inside the skeg for a 1 1/2 to 2" shaft. > >Something > > > > >that I can bolt a U-joint shaft to is all I need, but I'm not having much luck > > > > >finding sources. Any recommendations? > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Doug > > > > > > > [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] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25712|25691|2011-04-08 20:36:01|Aaron Williams|Re: Thrust Bearing|Gord No real reason, A small electric would be nice for getting out of the harbor quitely. ________________________________ From: Gord Schnell To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, April 8, 2011 3:53:57 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing I supose you could....but why? Gord On 2011-04-08, at 3:57 PM, Aaron Williams wrote: > Doug > > Is this disconect something that one could disconect the shaft from the engine > then the prop would free wheel and then be run with an electric motor? > Aaron > > ________________________________ > From: Gord Schnell > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Fri, April 8, 2011 9:12:37 AM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing > > Your right, Doug. I had forgotten about the disconnect feature.....I'm using a > self-feathering prop, so it never crossed my mind. > Gord > > On 2011-04-08, at 10:06 AM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > Right; tapered roller bearings are whats in the front hub. > > > > A Dana Model 30 Front Axle 1987-1995 Jeep Wrangler YJ also has a build in > > disconnect that uses a push pull cable or a vacuum motor that is mounted to >the > > > > > axel tube where it operates a dog clutch to disconnect the two piece axel > > between the hub and the differential. I'll just need to cut away the > > differential and set a bearing in the differential end of the axel tube. Then > > > adapt the axle splines that normally entered the differential to connect the > > drive shaft u-joint yoke going on up to the engine. > > > > Does anyone ever use a sear pin on the dive line so damage is limited when >the > > > > prop hits something solid? > > > > Doug > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > ________________________________ > > From: brentswain38 > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 9:05:10 PM > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing > > > > A tapered roller bearing ( standard wheel bearing)will take a lot of thrust, > >You > > > > can go slightly over sized and machine a sleeve to take it to whatever size >you > > > > > want. . > > A deep groove ball bearing will take half it's radial load in thrust. They >come > > > > > with self aligning pillow blocks. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Doug - SubmarineBoat.com" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > I need a thrust bearing just inside the skeg for a 1 1/2 to 2" shaft. > >Something > > > > >that I can bolt a U-joint shaft to is all I need, but I'm not having much >luck > > > > > >finding sources. Any recommendations? > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Doug > > > > > > > [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] > > [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] | 25713|25691|2011-04-08 20:40:24|Gord Schnell|Re: Thrust Bearing|Hhaaa!! Stealth Mode option Cool Gord On 2011-04-08, at 5:35 PM, Aaron Williams wrote: > Gord > No real reason, > A small electric would be nice for getting out of the harbor quitely. > > ________________________________ > From: Gord Schnell > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Fri, April 8, 2011 3:53:57 PM > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing > > I supose you could....but why? > Gord > > On 2011-04-08, at 3:57 PM, Aaron Williams wrote: > > > Doug > > > > Is this disconect something that one could disconect the shaft from the engine > > > then the prop would free wheel and then be run with an electric motor? > > Aaron > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Gord Schnell > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Fri, April 8, 2011 9:12:37 AM > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing > > > > Your right, Doug. I had forgotten about the disconnect feature.....I'm using a > > > self-feathering prop, so it never crossed my mind. > > Gord > > > > On 2011-04-08, at 10:06 AM, Doug Jackson wrote: > > > > > Right; tapered roller bearings are whats in the front hub. > > > > > > A Dana Model 30 Front Axle 1987-1995 Jeep Wrangler YJ also has a build in > > > disconnect that uses a push pull cable or a vacuum motor that is mounted to > >the > > > > > > > > axel tube where it operates a dog clutch to disconnect the two piece axel > > > between the hub and the differential. I'll just need to cut away the > > > differential and set a bearing in the differential end of the axel tube. Then > > > > > adapt the axle splines that normally entered the differential to connect the > > > > drive shaft u-joint yoke going on up to the engine. > > > > > > Does anyone ever use a sear pin on the dive line so damage is limited when > >the > > > > > > > prop hits something solid? > > > > > > Doug > > > ArgonautJr.com > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: brentswain38 > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 9:05:10 PM > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing > > > > > > A tapered roller bearing ( standard wheel bearing)will take a lot of thrust, > > > >You > > > > > > can go slightly over sized and machine a sleeve to take it to whatever size > >you > > > > > > > > want. . > > > A deep groove ball bearing will take half it's radial load in thrust. They > >come > > > > > > > > with self aligning pillow blocks. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Doug - SubmarineBoat.com" > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I need a thrust bearing just inside the skeg for a 1 1/2 to 2" shaft. > > >Something > > > > > > >that I can bolt a U-joint shaft to is all I need, but I'm not having much > >luck > > > > > > > > >finding sources. Any recommendations? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > [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] > > > > > > [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] | 25714|25691|2011-04-08 21:28:24|Gary H. Lucas|Re: Thrust Bearing|You know, I think I’d use a pillow block bearing with the deep groove radial bearing. They have a spherical outer race mounted into a spherical housing, so they are completely self aligning. You can get Cast Iron, Stainless, and Fiberglass reinforced housing, sealed bearings etc. So you can spend a very short time providing a base welded into the boat instead of lots of time figuring out how to machine car parts. Specifications are known and not guessed, reliability is huge, and spare parts available almost anywhere. Gary H. Lucas From: brentswain38 Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:05 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Thrust Bearing A tapered roller bearing ( standard wheel bearing)will take a lot of thrust, You can go slightly over sized and machine a sleeve to take it to whatever size you want. . A deep groove ball bearing will take half it's radial load in thrust. They come with self aligning pillow blocks. --- In mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com, "Doug - SubmarineBoat.com" wrote: > > I need a thrust bearing just inside the skeg for a 1 1/2 to 2" shaft. Something that I can bolt a U-joint shaft to is all I need, but I'm not having much luck finding sources. Any recommendations? > > Thanks > Doug > Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25715|25669|2011-04-09 03:41:04|normanbywaite|Re: welding; Stick or Mig?|I'm not ready to tackle the welding myself, so there's abloke doing some for me. He reckons the cabintop sheet is too thin to stick weld, he's chosen to use a Mig welder to weld the patches on. He reckons that stick welding would just blow holes in the cabintop. The wind is giving him grief because it's blowing the gas away before it can do it's job. I don't know enough to question his choice - is there anything i should be asking him? Matt| 25716|25716|2011-04-09 03:49:33|normanbywaite|rust|I'd like some advice about dealing with rust please. I've found a number of areas where there's rust on the surface, and some where there's rust under the paint. The spost i've found i'm dealing with. I'm trying to leave the boat pretty much as-is and just go out and enjoy some sailing. In a year or two i do plan to strip the boat out and make some more major modifications. I'm resisting the urge to go the whole hog and strip her out now. My question is about time. How long does it take superficial rust to become a rusted-out hole? Basically i've found rust under each part of the ceiling liner i've looked at, and i imagine that there's more to be found under the liner areas that i currently don't have a reason to pull out. So if there are some rust areas on hidden surfaces, and i ignore it (bacause i haven't found it, how long have i got before she sinks? Matt| 25717|25716|2011-04-09 11:41:16|Ben Okopnik|Re: rust|On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 07:49:33AM -0000, normanbywaite wrote: > > So if there are some rust areas on hidden surfaces, and i ignore it > (bacause i haven't found it, how long have i got before she sinks? It's impossible to tell via email, of course, so the question doesn't mean a whole lot as it is. There are some rules of thumb, though. 1) The chance that you'll sink is pretty low, even if the boat does rust through. If it does - well, lots of wooden boats (especially commercial ones) leak and their owners take it as a matter of course. Bilge pump runs every X minutes, they file the interval away in their brains, and as long as it doesn't decrease, they don't even notice it after a while. So it's more of a matter of attitude than anything else. (Us metal boat people get to live in a certain kind of luxury, mindset-wise: we don't get a single drop of water inside unless we want it there. But that's not how it is for anyone else.) 2) Take a chipping hammer and whack the hell out of the rustiest spot you can find. If you can't punch through by giving it all you've got, you have a few months at the very least before there's any serious chance of holes. That being said, if beating on the steel flakes off more than half the original thickness (not of rust, but of the original steel - rust to steel volume is about 6 to 1), you'll want to note that spot down for repair in the very near future. 3) A hole in the overhead or in the topsides won't sink you; one below the waterline could. Go bang that chipping hammer around in your bilge, and put some muscle behind it (be sure to wear goggles.) And - just in case - test your bilge pumps. And carry a big spare that you can connect quickly. Other than that, enjoy your sailing. :) 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| 25718|25669|2011-04-09 15:16:45|James Pronk|Re: welding; Stick or Mig?|He could try a small diameter 6013 rod. 6013 was developed to weld sheet metal and he could use a 3/32 dia rod. I have been welding thin plate (3 mm) with 7014 and it is working good James --- On Sat, 4/9/11, normanbywaite wrote: From: normanbywaite Subject: [origamiboats] Re: welding; Stick or Mig? To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Saturday, April 9, 2011, 3:40 AM   I'm not ready to tackle the welding myself, so there's abloke doing some for me. He reckons the cabintop sheet is too thin to stick weld, he's chosen to use a Mig welder to weld the patches on. He reckons that stick welding would just blow holes in the cabintop. The wind is giving him grief because it's blowing the gas away before it can do it's job. I don't know enough to question his choice - is there anything i should be asking him? Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25719|25716|2011-04-09 15:27:00|brentswain38|Re: rust|I once read about a 30 footer plated with 3/16th plate, cruising full time in the tropics. The area under the head was wet, and thus unpaintable the whole time. It took 15 years to rust thru. A centre punch and a hammer used on any doubtful spots will tell you how thick it is. If a good whckh doesn't significantly dent the hull plate or go thru , you have, structurally, plenty of thickness. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "normanbywaite" wrote: > > I'd like some advice about dealing with rust please. > I've found a number of areas where there's rust on the surface, and some where there's rust under the paint. The spost i've found i'm dealing with. > I'm trying to leave the boat pretty much as-is and just go out and enjoy some sailing. > In a year or two i do plan to strip the boat out and make some more major modifications. I'm resisting the urge to go the whole hog and strip her out now. > > My question is about time. How long does it take superficial rust to become a rusted-out hole? > > Basically i've found rust under each part of the ceiling liner i've looked at, and i imagine that there's more to be found under the liner areas that i currently don't have a reason to pull out. > > So if there are some rust areas on hidden surfaces, and i ignore it (bacause i haven't found it, how long have i got before she sinks? > > Matt > | 25720|25669|2011-04-09 15:40:45|David Frantz|Re: welding; Stick or Mig?|Doing any sort of MIG welding outside requires absolute calm, that is no wind at all. This is why I never recommend a MIG as your first welder choice. As to blowing holes with the stick welder that is possible if you choose the wrong electrodes and current settings. Asking him? No I'd consider another welder first or learn to DIY. It really doesn't sound like this guy has heavy experience welding. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 9, 2011, at 3:40 AM, normanbywaite wrote: > I'm not ready to tackle the welding myself, so there's abloke doing some for me. > He reckons the cabintop sheet is too thin to stick weld, he's chosen to use a Mig welder to weld the patches on. He reckons that stick welding would just blow holes in the cabintop. > The wind is giving him grief because it's blowing the gas away before it can do it's job. > > I don't know enough to question his choice - is there anything i should be asking him? > Matt > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 25721|25716|2011-04-09 16:18:15|wild_explorer|Re: rust|Long time ago I used liquid rust-modificator made from water and 2 types of acid on thin-sheet rusted metal part. I scraped old paint off, used metal brush to remove most of loose surface rust and put rust-modificator on it with painting brush. Left it for couples of days. It gave me very good hard coating. Rinse with fresh water, waited until dry, painted over it. Rust-modificator you can make by yourself. I do not remember exact recipe, but one ingredient was concentrated solution for car battery's electrolyte. Do not remember another one. Use rubber gloves, goggles and protective/old clothing to work with it. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "normanbywaite" wrote: > > I'd like some advice about dealing with rust please. > I've found a number of areas where there's rust on the surface, and some where there's rust under the paint. The spost i've found i'm dealing with. > I'm trying to leave the boat pretty much as-is and just go out and enjoy some sailing. > In a year or two i do plan to strip the boat out and make some more major modifications. I'm resisting the urge to go the whole hog and strip her out now. | 25722|25722|2011-04-09 19:23:16|William|Design modification|Brent's designs are the most practical and achievable route to building a boat in a reasonable amount of time and money. I am sold. I got the book, got the DVD and got a kitchen pass (permission from the wife). I am good to go. Here lies the problem. If I am to build a boat, I want it to be my boat for my specific needs and taste. Thats not a horrible request or thought. I want a boat with an 8.5 beam and 28 to 30 feet. This violates the current 3 to 1 length to beam ratio. Never the less, I have my reasons. I understand that others have taken the BS26 and lengthened it to 27. I also understand that in the 36, a thicker 4 mm or 3/16 steel is used for the hull. I do not know what steel the 31 uses. Is there a risk in taking the 26 to 28 and staying with the thinner steel? I believe I saw a web site (Kims boat)where that builder was adding a plate of 4mm to the center area. Why was that done and why were the internal bracing done which I have not seen in other boats? Certainly bracing under the mast tabernacle is needed and required in absence of a compression post. Do I go with the 31 and play with the numbers? Sure wish there were study plans. Give me your best advice oh metal working wizards! Thanks in advance, Bill| 25723|25722|2011-04-10 02:27:25|wild_explorer|Re: Design modification|If you are going to build Brent's boat and want it to sail like it designed to do, follow the plans. DO NOT CHANGE IT!!! Do not try to modify it. Especially the hull, keel, skeg, rudder. It will change boat's hydrostatics. Cabin, pilothouse - not so bad (it will change weight distribution, center of wind area, etc). Same with the rig - may be not so bad if you have GOOD knowledge what you are doing. Ones again... You mess with the hull - you will get different boat. Brent's boat has very good balance and stability. Why ruin it??? If you know ALL about sailboat design - it will be different story ;)) So, choose what Brent's plan fit you, build it following the plans, sail happily... P.S. I am not boat designer, but I learned it by trying to make some changes to Brent's original plans. Luckily, it was done in 3D only - no money wasted for materials. No harm done. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "William" wrote: > > Here lies the problem. If I am to build a boat, I want it to be my boat for my specific needs and taste. Thats not a horrible request or thought. I want a boat with an 8.5 beam and 28 to 30 feet. This violates the current 3 to 1 length to beam ratio. Never the less, I have my reasons. > | 25724|25716|2011-04-10 06:37:39|ed_lithgow|Re: rust|Battery electrolyte is sulphuric acid. I havn't heard that recommended elsewhere as a rust treatment, but I can attest that its apparently been a very good rust promoter on the battery tray of every (very 2nd hand) car or truck I've ever owned. More usually recommended rust treatments/removers are phosphoric acid (mild version, Coca Cola) and (I THINK) hydrochloric acid, though I'd think you'd want to wash/neutralise the latter carefully after use, and it'll be pretty difficult to wash it off inside a boat. I also vaguely recall some mention of sugar soap (various formulations of sodium or calcium phospate) as a follow-up, which might help neutralise the acid. Talking of fringe DIY rust treatments, for what its worth (not much in a marine environment, I suspect) I use aluminium (bit of tubing in a drill chuck, packed with tightly rolled beer can, or the end of a beer can with a bolt and washers, also in a drill chuck), as a mild abrasive, and vegetable oil as a lubricant, to clean up rust patches on old cars. The rust, oil, old paint, and aluminium forms a protective paste which "sets" into a paint as the oil oxidises. Sunflower oil works but tung oil or linseed oil would probably be better. Aluminium foil can be crumpled into a useful self forming abrasive pad for awkward shapes like pipes or spokes and similarly lubricated with veg oil (or Coca Cola) but it gets pretty hot, perhaps partly due to the exothermic oxidation of freshly exposed aluminium metal. One could perhaps incorporate sugar-soap into the crumples as a mild abrasive and neutraliser. I've used toothpaste in this way on cars. I suspect such treatments wont overpaint too well which probably eliminate them from marine use, though I suppose you could treat patches pending a comprehensive sandblast which'd probably remove it OK. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Long time ago I used liquid rust-modificator made from water and 2 types of acid on thin-sheet rusted metal part. I scraped old paint off, used metal brush to remove most of loose surface rust and put rust-modificator on it with painting brush. Left it for couples of days. It gave me very good hard coating. Rinse with fresh water, waited until dry, painted over it. > > Rust-modificator you can make by yourself. I do not remember exact recipe, but one ingredient was concentrated solution for car battery's electrolyte. Do not remember another one. > > Use rubber gloves, goggles and protective/old clothing to work with it. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "normanbywaite" wrote: > > > > I'd like some advice about dealing with rust please. > > I've found a number of areas where there's rust on the surface, and some where there's rust under the paint. The spost i've found i'm dealing with. > > I'm trying to leave the boat pretty much as-is and just go out and enjoy some sailing. > > In a year or two i do plan to strip the boat out and make some more major modifications. I'm resisting the urge to go the whole hog and strip her out now. > | 25725|25722|2011-04-10 07:26:18|Kim|Re: Design modification|Hi Bill ... Congratulations on deciding to build one of Brent's designs! The Swayne 26 I'm currently building is the 5th boat I've built for myself (but it's the first steel one), and it's certainly the fastest and easiest type of construction, compared to the others I've done. If I had more time and money it would have been in the water ages ago; but it will get there eventually! :-) I don't know if the Swayne 26' can be lengthened (mine is built to plan); but no doubt Brent would be able to advise you on that. As far as hull plate thickness is concerned: although Brent's 31-footer uses 3/16" plate, I would think that 3mm hull plate would be more than adequate for a much bigger boat than mine. I think I've seen other designs up to 35' that only use 3mm plate. The strength that the plates attain once a few compound curves have been pulled in to them (when the half-hulls are pulled together) is really extraordinary. Having said that, a small area of plate on the underside of my boat hull (well under the waterline) is 4mm thick (but it's 3mm everywhere else). During construction, the width/depth of the hull panels has to be increased a bit by welding on some "filler/extension" plates (this is done before the half-hulls are pulled together). Brent recommended that I use 4mm for these small "filler/extension" pieces, as its extra weight wouldn't matter down there, and it it would provide a bit of extra rust wastage allowance. It would be OK to use 3mm plate there too. The permanent internal bracing (2" pipes running from the inboard deck edge to the chine) that I've put in my boat is almost to plan. One pair of pipes is needed under the mast-arch support, and in a message to this group some time ago Brent recommended putting another pair of pipe braces anywhere aft of the mast pair. I put in 3 pairs, mostly because I had a bit of pipe left over, they don't weigh much, they wont interfere with the accommodation much, and apparently they quite dramatically increase the strength in that area. They are the equivalent to, or better than, putting in numerous large solid knees at the hull-deck join. Finally, although I'm sure that you have very good reasons for wanting to go a bit bigger than 26' (while keeping the beam at 8.5), it's worth noting that the Swayne 26 is definitely not a small boat. I'm 6ft tall, and I'll have standing headroom inside. Its wide sidedecks are awesome! In an earlier message to this group Brent once said "the BS 26 has full headroom and is liveable. It has the interior room of an Alberg 30". It's pretty huge inside! Anyway, hope this helps, Bill. Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "William" wrote: > > Brent's designs are the most practical and achievable route to building a boat in a reasonable amount of time and money. I am sold. I got the book, got the DVD and got a kitchen pass (permission from the wife). I am good to go. > Here lies the problem. If I am to build a boat, I want it to be my boat for my specific needs and taste. Thats not a horrible request or thought. I want a boat with an 8.5 beam and 28 to 30 feet. This violates the current 3 to 1 length to beam ratio. Never the less, I have my reasons. > I understand that others have taken the BS26 and lengthened it to 27. I also understand that in the 36, a thicker 4 mm or 3/16 steel is used for the hull. I do not know what steel the 31 uses. > Is there a risk in taking the 26 to 28 and staying with the thinner steel? I believe I saw a web site (Kims boat)where that builder was adding a plate of 4mm to the center area. Why was that done and why were the internal bracing done which I have not seen in other boats? Certainly bracing under the mast tabernacle is needed and required in absence of a compression post. > Do I go with the 31 and play with the numbers? Sure wish there were study plans. Give me your best advice oh metal working wizards! > > Thanks in advance, Bill ______________________________________________________________ | 25726|25716|2011-04-10 08:48:19|Jay K. Jeffries|Re: rust|Deadened phosphoric acid is used to covert rust from the very loose red form (hematite???) to the black, very adherent form (magnetite???, can't remember correctly the 3 forms and names of iron corrosion products). A commercial product OSPHO (SP???) is very good for treating iron that will be around saltwater. R/Jay From: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com [mailto:origamiboats@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ed_lithgow Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 6:38 AM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rust Battery electrolyte is sulphuric acid. I havn't heard that recommended elsewhere as a rust treatment, but I can attest that its apparently been a very good rust promoter on the battery tray of every (very 2nd hand) car or truck I've ever owned. More usually recommended rust treatments/removers are phosphoric acid (mild version, Coca Cola) and (I THINK) hydrochloric acid, though I'd think you'd want to wash/neutralise the latter carefully after use, and it'll be pretty difficult to wash it off inside a boat. I also vaguely recall some mention of sugar soap (various formulations of sodium or calcium phospate) as a follow-up, which might help neutralise the acid. Talking of fringe DIY rust treatments, for what its worth (not much in a marine environment, I suspect) I use aluminium (bit of tubing in a drill chuck, packed with tightly rolled beer can, or the end of a beer can with a bolt and washers, also in a drill chuck), as a mild abrasive, and vegetable oil as a lubricant, to clean up rust patches on old cars. The rust, oil, old paint, and aluminium forms a protective paste which "sets" into a paint as the oil oxidises. Sunflower oil works but tung oil or linseed oil would probably be better. Aluminium foil can be crumpled into a useful self forming abrasive pad for awkward shapes like pipes or spokes and similarly lubricated with veg oil (or Coca Cola) but it gets pretty hot, perhaps partly due to the exothermic oxidation of freshly exposed aluminium metal. One could perhaps incorporate sugar-soap into the crumples as a mild abrasive and neutraliser. I've used toothpaste in this way on cars. I suspect such treatments wont overpaint too well which probably eliminate them from marine use, though I suppose you could treat patches pending a comprehensive sandblast which'd probably remove it OK. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25727|25716|2011-04-10 09:05:05|martin demers|Re: rust|Jay, Do you know if it is available in Canada? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: bottomgun@... Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 08:48:13 -0400 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: rust Deadened phosphoric acid is used to covert rust from the very loose red form (hematite???) to the black, very adherent form (magnetite???, can't remember correctly the 3 forms and names of iron corrosion products). A commercial product OSPHO (SP???) is very good for treating iron that will be around saltwater. R/Jay From: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com [mailto:origamiboats@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ed_lithgow Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 6:38 AM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rust Battery electrolyte is sulphuric acid. I havn't heard that recommended elsewhere as a rust treatment, but I can attest that its apparently been a very good rust promoter on the battery tray of every (very 2nd hand) car or truck I've ever owned. More usually recommended rust treatments/removers are phosphoric acid (mild version, Coca Cola) and (I THINK) hydrochloric acid, though I'd think you'd want to wash/neutralise the latter carefully after use, and it'll be pretty difficult to wash it off inside a boat. I also vaguely recall some mention of sugar soap (various formulations of sodium or calcium phospate) as a follow-up, which might help neutralise the acid. Talking of fringe DIY rust treatments, for what its worth (not much in a marine environment, I suspect) I use aluminium (bit of tubing in a drill chuck, packed with tightly rolled beer can, or the end of a beer can with a bolt and washers, also in a drill chuck), as a mild abrasive, and vegetable oil as a lubricant, to clean up rust patches on old cars. The rust, oil, old paint, and aluminium forms a protective paste which "sets" into a paint as the oil oxidises. Sunflower oil works but tung oil or linseed oil would probably be better. Aluminium foil can be crumpled into a useful self forming abrasive pad for awkward shapes like pipes or spokes and similarly lubricated with veg oil (or Coca Cola) but it gets pretty hot, perhaps partly due to the exothermic oxidation of freshly exposed aluminium metal. One could perhaps incorporate sugar-soap into the crumples as a mild abrasive and neutraliser. I've used toothpaste in this way on cars. I suspect such treatments wont overpaint too well which probably eliminate them from marine use, though I suppose you could treat patches pending a comprehensive sandblast which'd probably remove it OK. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25728|25716|2011-04-10 09:15:36|Ben Okopnik|Re: rust|On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 08:48:13AM -0400, Jay K. Jeffries wrote: > A commercial > product OSPHO (SP???) is very good for treating iron that will be around > saltwater. In my experience, Ospho is great for removing rust stains - you can just mop the deck with it - but not a whole lot more than that. It's useful, and I definitely carry it on board, but for doing actual repairs, it can't hold a candle to Corroseal. The latter also turns black when it converts rust, is water-soluble until it sets, forms a hard coat that makes an excellent primer for epoxy, and costs only a few bucks more than Ospho. It's what the cities up and down the East Coast use when they're doing bridge maintenance. 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| 25729|25716|2011-04-10 09:18:57|Jay K. Jeffries|Re: rust|Martin, Have no idea; you might check their web site: www.ospho.com. Here is a description of how it works: http://www.caswellplating.com/aids/ospho.html. Another similar product is Naval Jelly, a jellied form of similar chemistry. R/Jay -----Original Message----- From: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com [mailto:origamiboats@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of martin demers Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 9:05 AM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: rust Jay, Do you know if it is available in Canada? Martin.| 25730|25716|2011-04-10 09:20:36|martin demers|Re: rust|Ben, do you think Corroseal is better than zinc primer? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:14:51 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: rust On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 08:48:13AM -0400, Jay K. Jeffries wrote: > A commercial > product OSPHO (SP???) is very good for treating iron that will be around > saltwater. In my experience, Ospho is great for removing rust stains - you can just mop the deck with it - but not a whole lot more than that. It's useful, and I definitely carry it on board, but for doing actual repairs, it can't hold a candle to Corroseal. The latter also turns black when it converts rust, is water-soluble until it sets, forms a hard coat that makes an excellent primer for epoxy, and costs only a few bucks more than Ospho. It's what the cities up and down the East Coast use when they're doing bridge maintenance. 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] | 25731|25716|2011-04-10 10:05:30|Ben Okopnik|Re: rust|On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 09:20:34AM -0400, martin demers wrote: > > Ben, > > do you think Corroseal is better than zinc primer? If I was going over new steel - e.g., a weld - I'd go with the zinc primer. In fact, that's the dividing point: if I can get a grinder to the area that I'm derusting, then I'll get it down to bare metal and use zinc; if I can't grind it, then I chip it as best I can and then Corroseal it. If I was a perfectionist, I'd probably put a coat of zinc over the Corroseal before putting the epoxy down for a little extra protection. 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| 25732|25722|2011-04-10 11:46:13|SHANE ROTHWELL|Design modification|Bill,   What he said.....   Re: Design modification Posted by: "wild_explorer" williswildest@...   wild_explorer Sat Apr 9, 2011 11:27 pm (PDT) If you are going to build Brent's boat and want it to sail like it designed to do, follow the plans. DO NOT CHANGE IT!!! Do not try to modify it. Especially the hull, keel, skeg, rudder. It will change boat's hydrostatics. Cabin, pilothouse - not so bad (it will change weight distribution, center of wind area, etc). Same with the rig - may be not so bad if you have GOOD knowledge what you are doing. Ones again... You mess with the hull - you will get different boat. Brent's boat has very good balance and stability. Why ruin it??? If you know ALL about sailboat design - it will be different story ;)) So, choose what Brent's plan fit you, build it following the plans, sail happily... P.S. I am not boat designer, but I learned it by trying to make some changes to Brent's original plans. Luckily, it was done in 3D only - no money wasted for materials. No harm done. > Design modification Posted by: "William" rowdy@...   rowdyflyer1903 Sat Apr 9, 2011 4:23 pm (PDT) Brent's designs are the most practical and achievable route to building a boat in a reasonable amount of time and money. I am sold. I got the book, got the DVD and got a kitchen pass (permission from the wife). I am good to go. Here lies the problem. If I am to build a boat, I want it to be my boat for my specific needs and taste. Thats not a horrible request or thought. I want a boat with an 8.5 beam and 28 to 30 feet. This violates the current 3 to 1 length to beam ratio. Never the less, I have my reasons. I understand that others have taken the BS26 and lengthened it to 27. I also understand that in the 36, a thicker 4 mm or 3/16 steel is used for the hull. I do not know what steel the 31 uses. Is there a risk in taking the 26 to 28 and staying with the thinner steel? I believe I saw a web site (Kims boat)where that builder was adding a plate of 4mm to the center area. Why was that done and why were the internal bracing done which I have not seen in other boats? Certainly bracing under the mast tabernacle is needed and required in absence of a compression post. Do I go with the 31 and play with the numbers? Sure wish there were study plans. Give me your best advice oh metal working wizards! Thanks in advance, Bill| 25733|25716|2011-04-10 21:06:24|normanbywaite|Re: rust|Thanks for the replies. I wasn't so much asking how to deal with the rust i have found, but about how much of a time bomb the rust i haven't found is. I have been using a phosphoric acid rust converter. It says it converts the rust to a phosphate of iron, and forms a primer that you can paint over. That's all fine, i'm happy with the method i'll be using to deal with the rust i have found. My question was somewhat hypothetical about the rust i haven't yet found, and don't plan to go looking for just yet. I'm NOT doing a complete re-fit, i'm doing a patch up. The complete re-fit, if it happens at all, will happen in a year or two. I'll use the example of the rust i found behind the toilet. With the scraper i pulled off about 2mm of rust flakes. Then i used a wire brush to clean it up, then paint on the rust converter. Now, what if i'd left the rust alone? Let's assume the plating there (below the waterline) is no less than 3mm thick. Assuming the rust flakes are 'swolen' metal, then i presumably haven't 'lost' 2mm of hull plating, but have lost something less. If the rust constituted, say, 1/2 the hull plating, then i wonder how long it would take to rust through? 1 year? 2? A week? The reason i ask is that there may be other areas i haven't located, and might not find until/if i do a full re-fit in a year or two.| 25734|25722|2011-04-11 08:54:41|rhko47|Re: Design modification|Please see message #23713. I added one longitudinal (1"x1"x3/16") on each side and one transverse member (3"x3"x1/4") on each side. The main part of the hull is 1/8", but the added on triangular plates, which form a diamond shape at the bottom/center of the hull, are 3/16". There were a couple of errors in my original message. The scaled up weight should be 8400#, not 8800#. The headroom, based on a 2 ft wide sole 18" below the waterline, and not counting thickness of flooring, roof beams or headliner, is 6'7", not 6'5". The sole could be made higher/wider if that suits you. The scaling up process is pretty straight forward. Brent originally suggested using a photocopy process to magnify scale drawings and taking scale measurements from that. I just made new drawings from the old, taking measurements from the old and multiplying them by 28/26 to get the new. Checked everything more than twice, and it all fit together well, except that the top of the transom is not quite high enough. Later, I got the video and learned (it's not on the plans or in the postings) that you should leave extra on the top of the transom, and cut it off only after it is installed. So I don't know whether that minor problem reflects an error on my part, or an error in the drawing of the transom, or if no two are the same and you just leave extra and trim it to suit. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "William" wrote: > > Brent's designs are the most practical and achievable route to building a boat in a reasonable amount of time and money. I am sold. I got the book, got the DVD and got a kitchen pass (permission from the wife). I am good to go. > Here lies the problem. If I am to build a boat, I want it to be my boat for my specific needs and taste. Thats not a horrible request or thought. I want a boat with an 8.5 beam and 28 to 30 feet. This violates the current 3 to 1 length to beam ratio. Never the less, I have my reasons. > I understand that others have taken the BS26 and lengthened it to 27. I also understand that in the 36, a thicker 4 mm or 3/16 steel is used for the hull. I do not know what steel the 31 uses. > Is there a risk in taking the 26 to 28 and staying with the thinner steel? I believe I saw a web site (Kims boat)where that builder was adding a plate of 4mm to the center area. Why was that done and why were the internal bracing done which I have not seen in other boats? Certainly bracing under the mast tabernacle is needed and required in absence of a compression post. > Do I go with the 31 and play with the numbers? Sure wish there were study plans. Give me your best advice oh metal working wizards! > > Thanks in advance, Bill > | 25735|25716|2011-04-11 09:47:52|James Pronk|Re: rust|Just a tip on something I use to clean up rust. I have taken a short piece of cable and untwisted one end. Then I put the other end in my high speed drill and I find I can get into corners and even around corners with it. If you run the drill in the same direction as the twist of the cable it won't all come undone. Works good in tight spots and it is cheap. James  --- On Sun, 4/10/11, Ben Okopnik wrote: From: Ben Okopnik Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: rust To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Sunday, April 10, 2011, 9:35 AM   On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 09:20:34AM -0400, martin demers wrote: > > Ben, > > do you think Corroseal is better than zinc primer? If I was going over new steel - e.g., a weld - I'd go with the zinc primer. In fact, that's the dividing point: if I can get a grinder to the area that I'm derusting, then I'll get it down to bare metal and use zinc; if I can't grind it, then I chip it as best I can and then Corroseal it. If I was a perfectionist, I'd probably put a coat of zinc over the Corroseal before putting the epoxy down for a little extra protection. 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] | 25736|25716|2011-04-11 16:51:32|martin demers|Re: rust|I just received an e-mail from Ospho saying that their product is mainly use in the marine industry. Ben , but if corroseal is better , I will be happy to use it to cover my under deck to stop it rusting before I do a major ovehaul. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:14:51 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: rust On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 08:48:13AM -0400, Jay K. Jeffries wrote: > A commercial > product OSPHO (SP???) is very good for treating iron that will be around > saltwater. In my experience, Ospho is great for removing rust stains - you can just mop the deck with it - but not a whole lot more than that. It's useful, and I definitely carry it on board, but for doing actual repairs, it can't hold a candle to Corroseal. The latter also turns black when it converts rust, is water-soluble until it sets, forms a hard coat that makes an excellent primer for epoxy, and costs only a few bucks more than Ospho. It's what the cities up and down the East Coast use when they're doing bridge maintenance. 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] | 25737|25716|2011-04-11 17:06:49|martin demers|Re: rust|Ospho not available in Canada but Corroseal is. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:14:51 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: rust On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 08:48:13AM -0400, Jay K. Jeffries wrote: > A commercial > product OSPHO (SP???) is very good for treating iron that will be around > saltwater. In my experience, Ospho is great for removing rust stains - you can just mop the deck with it - but not a whole lot more than that. It's useful, and I definitely carry it on board, but for doing actual repairs, it can't hold a candle to Corroseal. The latter also turns black when it converts rust, is water-soluble until it sets, forms a hard coat that makes an excellent primer for epoxy, and costs only a few bucks more than Ospho. It's what the cities up and down the East Coast use when they're doing bridge maintenance. 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] | 25738|25716|2011-04-11 17:22:50|Ben Okopnik|Re: rust|On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 04:51:30PM -0400, martin demers wrote: > > I just received an e-mail from Ospho saying that their product is > mainly use in the marine industry. I wonder what they would have told you if you'd said that you were restoring cars. :) Although an ex-Merchant Marine friend of mine did tell me they used to get it in barrels and mop the decks with it. > Ben , > but if corroseal is better , I will be happy to use it to cover my > under deck to stop it rusting before I do a major ovehaul. I wouldn't expect either of the above to provide any long-term protection just by themselves. You'll still need a coat of _something_ over it; cheap epoxy seems like a good answer. 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| 25739|25716|2011-04-11 17:47:02|Jay K. Jeffries|Re: rust|I sailed for a year as Engineering Officer on the largest US-built square rigger (130 ft.) at the time and everything on deck and engine room was preserved with Ospho prior to coating with paint or a Stockholm tar mixture. We experienced very few corrosion issues. R/Jay [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25740|25716|2011-04-11 17:49:18|brentswain38|Re: rust|You can sometimes check the depth of a pit, by cleaning the metal as much as possible, then putting a straight edge across the pit, sliding a dial caliper across the straight edge, , measuring the depth of the pit. ften what looks like a deep crater is only a few thou deep. If what you have can withstand a good whack on a center punch , you probably have enough metal for a couple of years. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "normanbywaite" wrote: > > Thanks for the replies. > I wasn't so much asking how to deal with the rust i have found, but about how much of a time bomb the rust i haven't found is. > > I have been using a phosphoric acid rust converter. It says it converts the rust to a phosphate of iron, and forms a primer that you can paint over. > That's all fine, i'm happy with the method i'll be using to deal with the rust i have found. > > My question was somewhat hypothetical about the rust i haven't yet found, and don't plan to go looking for just yet. > I'm NOT doing a complete re-fit, i'm doing a patch up. The complete re-fit, if it happens at all, will happen in a year or two. > > I'll use the example of the rust i found behind the toilet. With the scraper i pulled off about 2mm of rust flakes. Then i used a wire brush to clean it up, then paint on the rust converter. > > Now, what if i'd left the rust alone? Let's assume the plating there (below the waterline) is no less than 3mm thick. Assuming the rust flakes are 'swolen' metal, then i presumably haven't 'lost' 2mm of hull plating, but have lost something less. > > If the rust constituted, say, 1/2 the hull plating, then i wonder how long it would take to rust through? 1 year? 2? A week? > > The reason i ask is that there may be other areas i haven't located, and might not find until/if i do a full re-fit in a year or two. > | 25741|25716|2011-04-11 19:02:44|jason ball|Re: rust|phosphoric acid is available from any dairy farm stockists/ agricultural stockists to descale their holding tanks. dilute about 50-1 for getting rid of rust stains, but i use it neat after grinding an area, leave it on for about half an hour then wash and scrub it off with lots and lots of fresh water. i then coat with a anti corrosive primer, generally epoxy, unless i'm living on board and the problem is inside, then i would use a single pack product. . --- On Mon, 11/4/11, martin demers wrote: From: martin demers Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: rust To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 11 April, 2011, 22:06 Ospho not available in Canada but Corroseal is. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:14:51 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: rust   On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 08:48:13AM -0400, Jay K. Jeffries wrote: > A commercial > product OSPHO (SP???) is very good for treating iron that will be around > saltwater. In my experience, Ospho is great for removing rust stains - you can just mop the deck with it - but not a whole lot more than that. It's useful, and I definitely carry it on board, but for doing actual repairs, it can't hold a candle to Corroseal. The latter also turns black when it converts rust, is water-soluble until it sets, forms a hard coat that makes an excellent primer for epoxy, and costs only a few bucks more than Ospho. It's what the cities up and down the East Coast use when they're doing bridge maintenance. 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 To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25742|25742|2011-04-11 20:19:16|GP|Electric Pressure washer|I saw some of these for sale 1600psi to 2000 psi. One on sale at $129. Anyone ever use one of these for cleaning a hull prior to bottom painting and was it effective. ...thanks| 25743|25742|2011-04-11 22:48:11|Doug Jackson|Re: Electric Pressure washer|I have one of the 1600 psi models. Great for washing engines and cars. I've never washes a hull, but I think this unit would not be up to the task. Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: GP To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 7:19:07 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Electric Pressure washer I saw some of these for sale 1600psi to 2000 psi. One on sale at $129. Anyone ever use one of these for cleaning a hull prior to bottom painting and was it effective. ...thanks [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25744|25742|2011-04-12 03:02:02|Aaron Williams|Re: Electric Pressure washer|Don't know about washing the boat but seams like a good price for the pump to start building a water maker with. Where are they on sale at? Aaron ________________________________ From: GP To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 4:19:07 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Electric Pressure washer   I saw some of these for sale 1600psi to 2000 psi. One on sale at $129. Anyone ever use one of these for cleaning a hull prior to bottom painting and was it effective. ...thanks [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25745|25742|2011-04-12 07:29:27|Matt Malone|Re: Electric Pressure washer|Water Maker: Cool idea. I have used a 2,000 psi washer to clean my boat bottom prior to redoing the bottom with barrier coat (interlux 2000), on two boats. The pressure washer removes most of the pond-scum but some of it needed a pot scrubber. The pressure washer removes most of the vc-17 anti-fouling. I have found it useful to rapidly (few minutes) remove all of the old loose paint and stuff that would have fallen relatively quickly (couple hours) to a scraper. After that, the hull looked really patchy. I went around again with the pressure washer to see what I could strip off without elbow grease, and, with a little more carefully directed stream, a little more somewhat loose stuff would come off in some places. The 12-40 hours of scraping to get the hull really prepared remained however. Matt -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: akenai@... Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:01:53 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Electric Pressure washer Don't know about washing the boat but seams like a good price for the pump to start building a water maker with. Where are they on sale at? Aaron ---------------------------------------------------- From: GP To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 4:19:07 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Electric Pressure washer I saw some of these for sale 1600psi to 2000 psi. One on sale at $129. Anyone ever use one of these for cleaning a hull prior to bottom painting and was it effective. ...thanks [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25746|25742|2011-04-12 15:16:24|brentswain38|Re: Electric Pressure washer|For the 540 gallon per day watermaker you need at least 3 GPM. Andy said he figured out how to keep much of his paint on his hull. Don't pressure wash it. It could also blow much of your epoxy off. On a beach, getting it recoated could be a problem, unless you used Wasser Tar. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Water Maker: Cool idea. > > I have used a 2,000 psi washer to clean my boat bottom prior to redoing the bottom with barrier coat (interlux 2000), on two boats. The pressure washer removes most of the pond-scum but some of it needed a pot scrubber. The pressure washer removes most of the vc-17 anti-fouling. I have found it useful to rapidly (few minutes) remove all of the old loose paint and stuff that would have fallen relatively quickly (couple hours) to a scraper. After that, the hull looked really patchy. I went around again with the pressure washer to see what I could strip off without elbow grease, and, with a little more carefully directed stream, a little more somewhat loose stuff would come off in some places. > > The 12-40 hours of scraping to get the hull really prepared remained however. > > Matt > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: akenai@... > Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:01:53 -0700 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Electric Pressure washer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know about washing the boat but seams like a good price for the pump to > > start building a water maker with. Where are they on sale at? > > Aaron > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > From: GP > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 4:19:07 PM > > Subject: [origamiboats] Electric Pressure washer > > > > > > I saw some of these for sale 1600psi to 2000 psi. One on sale at $129. Anyone > > ever use one of these for cleaning a hull prior to bottom painting and was it > > effective. > > > > ...thanks > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25747|25722|2011-04-13 16:00:56|brentswain38|Re: Design modification|While major scale up throws everything out of porportion, areas go up by square root, volume goes up by the cube root, etc etc, a small scale up of 6% would be OK for the 26. That would give you the 8 1/2 ft beam and just over 27 ft length you seek. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "William" wrote: > > Brent's designs are the most practical and achievable route to building a boat in a reasonable amount of time and money. I am sold. I got the book, got the DVD and got a kitchen pass (permission from the wife). I am good to go. > Here lies the problem. If I am to build a boat, I want it to be my boat for my specific needs and taste. Thats not a horrible request or thought. I want a boat with an 8.5 beam and 28 to 30 feet. This violates the current 3 to 1 length to beam ratio. Never the less, I have my reasons. > I understand that others have taken the BS26 and lengthened it to 27. I also understand that in the 36, a thicker 4 mm or 3/16 steel is used for the hull. I do not know what steel the 31 uses. > Is there a risk in taking the 26 to 28 and staying with the thinner steel? I believe I saw a web site (Kims boat)where that builder was adding a plate of 4mm to the center area. Why was that done and why were the internal bracing done which I have not seen in other boats? Certainly bracing uy th ecube nder the mast tabernacle is needed and required in absence of a compression post. > Do I go with the 31 and play with the numbers? Sure wish there were study plans. Give me your best advice oh metal working wizards! > > Thanks in advance, Bill > | 25748|25742|2011-04-13 16:02:27|brentswain38|Re: Electric Pressure washer|For the watermaker you need a pressure pump with ceramic plungers. Three GPM ones come on sale, often. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > For the 540 gallon per day watermaker you need at least 3 GPM. > Andy said he figured out how to keep much of his paint on his hull. Don't pressure wash it. It could also blow much of your epoxy off. On a beach, getting it recoated could be a problem, unless you used Wasser Tar. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > > > > Water Maker: Cool idea. > > > > I have used a 2,000 psi washer to clean my boat bottom prior to redoing the bottom with barrier coat (interlux 2000), on two boats. The pressure washer removes most of the pond-scum but some of it needed a pot scrubber. The pressure washer removes most of the vc-17 anti-fouling. I have found it useful to rapidly (few minutes) remove all of the old loose paint and stuff that would have fallen relatively quickly (couple hours) to a scraper. After that, the hull looked really patchy. I went around again with the pressure washer to see what I could strip off without elbow grease, and, with a little more carefully directed stream, a little more somewhat loose stuff would come off in some places. > > > > The 12-40 hours of scraping to get the hull really prepared remained however. > > > > Matt > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > From: akenai@ > > Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:01:53 -0700 > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Electric Pressure washer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know about washing the boat but seams like a good price for the pump to > > > > start building a water maker with. Where are they on sale at? > > > > Aaron > > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > From: GP > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 4:19:07 PM > > > > Subject: [origamiboats] Electric Pressure washer > > > > > > > > > > > > I saw some of these for sale 1600psi to 2000 psi. One on sale at $129. Anyone > > > > ever use one of these for cleaning a hull prior to bottom painting and was it > > > > effective. > > > > > > > > ...thanks > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 25749|25749|2011-04-13 19:39:43|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|electric wire inside the mast|Brent, If someone want to pass wires inside a steel mast, could it be done using those water tight though hull device made for electric wires. and still have no air getting inside the mast? What do you think? Martin.| 25750|25749|2011-04-13 20:00:35|David Frantz|Re: electric wire inside the mast|Consider that my responses here are based on work done in automation. The devices you are referring to are often called glands or cord grips depending upon where in the world you come from. Here is a page of pictures: http://www.elecdirect.com/catalog/599c0b86-40a0-4dc8-b800-93168713dab6.aspx what you should notice is a wide array of types and materials. What you will need to do is to look for materials that are compatible and suitable for outdoor usage. Now the big problem as I see it is that these devices are designed to seal against flat panel box type enclosures. so on a round mast you either need to modify the mast midway or work out something for the cap on the top of the mast. On Apr 13, 2011, at 7:39 PM000, mdemers2005@... wrote: > Brent, > > If someone want to pass wires inside a steel mast, could it be done using those water tight though hull device made for electric wires. > and still have no air getting inside the mast? > What do you think? > > Martin. > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 25751|25749|2011-04-13 20:03:20|Gary H. Lucas|Re: electric wire inside the mast|Martin, I used to build machines for the commercial greenhouse industry. To get power to the machines I installed the power cord inside the water hose, with a weatherproof strain relief fitting at each end. We instructed customers to tighten it just a little, then turn on the water. If it dripped, just tighten it until the drip stops. Never any leaks at pressures over 100 PSI, and you could pull the cord through the connector without leaks! Gary H. Lucas From: mdemers2005@... Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 7:39 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] electric wire inside the mast Brent, If someone want to pass wires inside a steel mast, could it be done using those water tight though hull device made for electric wires. and still have no air getting inside the mast? What do you think? Martin. Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25752|25749|2011-04-13 20:15:55|martin demers|Re: electric wire inside the mast|David, Some are made for marine use, regarding the shape of the mast, you are right, I didn't thought about it. I would need to wels a flat spot on the mast. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: websterindustro@... Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:59:37 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] electric wire inside the mast Consider that my responses here are based on work done in automation. The devices you are referring to are often called glands or cord grips depending upon where in the world you come from. Here is a page of pictures: http://www.elecdirect.com/catalog/599c0b86-40a0-4dc8-b800-93168713dab6.aspx what you should notice is a wide array of types and materials. What you will need to do is to look for materials that are compatible and suitable for outdoor usage. Now the big problem as I see it is that these devices are designed to seal against flat panel box type enclosures. so on a round mast you either need to modify the mast midway or work out something for the cap on the top of the mast. On Apr 13, 2011, at 7:39 PM000, mdemers2005@... wrote: > Brent, > > If someone want to pass wires inside a steel mast, could it be done using those water tight though hull device made for electric wires. > and still have no air getting inside the mast? > What do you think? > > 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] | 25753|25749|2011-04-13 20:16:57|martin demers|Re: electric wire inside the mast|Gary, Good to know such device exist, do you know how it is called. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: gary.lucas@... Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:03:22 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] electric wire inside the mast Martin, I used to build machines for the commercial greenhouse industry. To get power to the machines I installed the power cord inside the water hose, with a weatherproof strain relief fitting at each end. We instructed customers to tighten it just a little, then turn on the water. If it dripped, just tighten it until the drip stops. Never any leaks at pressures over 100 PSI, and you could pull the cord through the connector without leaks! Gary H. Lucas From: mdemers2005@... Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 7:39 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] electric wire inside the mast Brent, If someone want to pass wires inside a steel mast, could it be done using those water tight though hull device made for electric wires. and still have no air getting inside the mast? What do you think? Martin. Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25754|25742|2011-04-14 07:16:03|Johnson|Re: Electric Pressure washer|I have an electric 1750psi I use for cleaning cement around the house. I tried it once on my 750 Honda to clean around the chain area. Stupid idea. It took the Honda black frame paint off first shot. So I would be careful on your hull paint. P.S. My neighbor just gave me one of those blue Crappy Tire electric power washers to repair. She says she drained the water out but the motor still froze in her garage. The seals blew. If u buy one keep it in the house in the winter. There's not much room for error with chinese stuff. Doesn't take much to break it. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "GP" wrote: > > I saw some of these for sale 1600psi to 2000 psi. One on sale at $129. Anyone ever use one of these for cleaning a hull prior to bottom painting and was it effective. > > ...thanks > | 25755|25742|2011-04-14 09:16:35|Matt Malone|Re: Electric Pressure washer|>From: brentswain38@... > >For the watermaker you need a pressure pump with ceramic plungers. Three GPM ones come on sale, often. Can you make some suggestions where to look for them on sale ? And how much are they usually, when they are on-sale ? Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25756|25749|2011-04-14 14:10:21|brentswain38|Re: electric wire inside the mast|Probably. I've been using plastic conduits up inside the mast, connected to a stainless pipe welded in at the entry and exit points. I've also used thin walled ss pipe for the entire conduit, which eliminates any chance of water getting in that way. It takes some planning to stop it from rattling inside the mast. Conduit lets you change your wires more easily. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Brent, > > If someone want to pass wires inside a steel mast, could it be done using those water tight though hull device made for electric wires. > and still have no air getting inside the mast? > What do you think? > > Martin. > | 25757|25749|2011-04-14 14:12:31|brentswain38|Re: electric wire inside the mast|Anything plastic, which is not black, will quickly break down from UV damage. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > Consider that my responses here are based on work done in automation. > > The devices you are referring to are often called glands or cord grips depending upon where in the world you come from. Here is a page of pictures: http://www.elecdirect.com/catalog/599c0b86-40a0-4dc8-b800-93168713dab6.aspx what you should notice is a wide array of types and materials. What you will need to do is to look for materials that are compatible and suitable for outdoor usage. Now the big problem as I see it is that these devices are designed to seal against flat panel box type enclosures. so on a round mast you either need to modify the mast midway or work out something for the cap on the top of the mast. > > > On Apr 13, 2011, at 7:39 PM000, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > Brent, > > > > If someone want to pass wires inside a steel mast, could it be done using those water tight though hull device made for electric wires. > > and still have no air getting inside the mast? > > What do you think? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > | 25758|25742|2011-04-14 14:15:48|brentswain38|Re: Electric Pressure washer|Princess Auto in Winnipeg is a good source. Good 3gpm ceramic plunger pumps were around $250 on sale. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > >From: brentswain38@... > > > >For the watermaker you need a pressure pump with ceramic plungers. Three GPM ones come on sale, often. > > Can you make some suggestions where to look for them on sale ? And how much are they usually, when they are on-sale ? > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25759|25749|2011-04-14 16:01:11|gschnell@shaw.ca|Re: electric wire inside the mast|If it is inside the mast will it ever see UV? 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: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:12:20 To: Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: electric wire inside the mast Anything plastic, which is not black, will quickly break down from UV damage. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > Consider that my responses here are based on work done in automation. > > The devices you are referring to are often called glands or cord grips depending upon where in the world you come from. Here is a page of pictures: http://www.elecdirect.com/catalog/599c0b86-40a0-4dc8-b800-93168713dab6.aspx what you should notice is a wide array of types and materials. What you will need to do is to look for materials that are compatible and suitable for outdoor usage. Now the big problem as I see it is that these devices are designed to seal against flat panel box type enclosures. so on a round mast you either need to modify the mast midway or work out something for the cap on the top of the mast. > > > On Apr 13, 2011, at 7:39 PM000, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > Brent, > > > > If someone want to pass wires inside a steel mast, could it be done using those water tight though hull device made for electric wires. > > and still have no air getting inside the mast? > > What do you think? > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > 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] | 25760|25742|2011-04-14 20:05:53|GP|Re: Electric Pressure washer|Canadian Tire had them on sale... but that might vary from store to store.. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > >From: brentswain38@... > > > >For the watermaker you need a pressure pump with ceramic plungers. Three GPM ones come on sale, often. > > Can you make some suggestions where to look for them on sale ? And how much are they usually, when they are on-sale ? > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25761|25749|2011-04-15 14:25:56|brentswain38|Re: electric wire inside the mast|No, it's where it leaves the mast that the problem begins . This part can be coated with black liquid electrical tape. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, gschnell@... wrote: > > If it is inside the mast will it ever see UV? > 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: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:12:20 > To: > Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: electric wire inside the mast > > Anything plastic, which is not black, will quickly break down from UV damage. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > > > Consider that my responses here are based on work done in automation. > > > > The devices you are referring to are often called glands or cord grips depending upon where in the world you come from. Here is a page of pictures: http://www.elecdirect.com/catalog/599c0b86-40a0-4dc8-b800-93168713dab6.aspx what you should notice is a wide array of types and materials. What you will need to do is to look for materials that are compatible and suitable for outdoor usage. Now the big problem as I see it is that these devices are designed to seal against flat panel box type enclosures. so on a round mast you either need to modify the mast midway or work out something for the cap on the top of the mast. > > > > > > On Apr 13, 2011, at 7:39 PM000, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > If someone want to pass wires inside a steel mast, could it be done using those water tight though hull device made for electric wires. > > > and still have no air getting inside the mast? > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > 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] > | 25762|25749|2011-04-15 15:01:16|Gord Schnell|Re: electric wire inside the mast|Ahhh Yes!! You are so right...eventually, it does have to leave the mast to connect with anything. Gord On 2011-04-15, at 11:25 AM, brentswain38 wrote: > No, it's where it leaves the mast that the problem begins . This part can be coated with black liquid electrical tape. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, gschnell@... wrote: > > > > If it is inside the mast will it ever see UV? > > 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: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:12:20 > > To: > > Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: electric wire inside the mast > > > > Anything plastic, which is not black, will quickly break down from UV damage. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > > > > > Consider that my responses here are based on work done in automation. > > > > > > The devices you are referring to are often called glands or cord grips depending upon where in the world you come from. Here is a page of pictures: http://www.elecdirect.com/catalog/599c0b86-40a0-4dc8-b800-93168713dab6.aspx what you should notice is a wide array of types and materials. What you will need to do is to look for materials that are compatible and suitable for outdoor usage. Now the big problem as I see it is that these devices are designed to seal against flat panel box type enclosures. so on a round mast you either need to modify the mast midway or work out something for the cap on the top of the mast. > > > > > > > > > On Apr 13, 2011, at 7:39 PM000, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > Brent, > > > > > > > > If someone want to pass wires inside a steel mast, could it be done using those water tight though hull device made for electric wires. > > > > and still have no air getting inside the mast? > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > 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] | 25763|25749|2011-04-15 17:08:32|David Frantz|Re: electric wire inside the mast|Cord grips can be found built out of many types of materials, so it might be easier to just buy a metal solution. You still have a slightly exposed rubber gland to cover up.. One thought that just came to me with regards to sealing against the round surface of the mast is that you could always drill a hole and weld in a coupling. That would likely help with internal fittings too. Sent from my iPad On Apr 15, 2011, at 2:25 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > No, it's where it leaves the mast that the problem begins . This part can be coated with black liquid electrical tape. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, gschnell@... wrote: >> >> If it is inside the mast will it ever see UV? >> 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: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:12:20 >> To: >> Reply-to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: [origamiboats] Re: electric wire inside the mast >> >> Anything plastic, which is not black, will quickly break down from UV damage. >> >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: >>> >>> Consider that my responses here are based on work done in automation. >>> >>> The devices you are referring to are often called glands or cord grips depending upon where in the world you come from. Here is a page of pictures: http://www.elecdirect.com/catalog/599c0b86-40a0-4dc8-b800-93168713dab6.aspx what you should notice is a wide array of types and materials. What you will need to do is to look for materials that are compatible and suitable for outdoor usage. Now the big problem as I see it is that these devices are designed to seal against flat panel box type enclosures. so on a round mast you either need to modify the mast midway or work out something for the cap on the top of the mast. >>> >>> >>> On Apr 13, 2011, at 7:39 PM000, mdemers2005@ wrote: >>> >>>> Brent, >>>> >>>> If someone want to pass wires inside a steel mast, could it be done using those water tight though hull device made for electric wires. >>>> and still have no air getting inside the mast? >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> Martin. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> 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@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 25764|25749|2011-04-15 19:36:37|Gary H. Lucas|Re: electric wire inside the mast|They are called Weatherproof Strain Relief Cord Grips. See www.mcmastercarr.com. The black nylon ones are cheap, and hold up very well in the weather. Gary H. Lucas -----Original Message----- From: martin demers Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 8:16 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [origamiboats] electric wire inside the mast Gary, Good to know such device exist, do you know how it is called. Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: gary.lucas@... Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 20:03:22 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] electric wire inside the mast Martin, I used to build machines for the commercial greenhouse industry. To get power to the machines I installed the power cord inside the water hose, with a weatherproof strain relief fitting at each end. We instructed customers to tighten it just a little, then turn on the water. If it dripped, just tighten it until the drip stops. Never any leaks at pressures over 100 PSI, and you could pull the cord through the connector without leaks! Gary H. Lucas From: mdemers2005@... Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 7:39 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] electric wire inside the mast Brent, If someone want to pass wires inside a steel mast, could it be done using those water tight though hull device made for electric wires. and still have no air getting inside the mast? What do you think? Martin. Gary H. Lucas [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 Gary H. Lucas| 25765|25716|2011-04-16 16:44:06|mauro gonzaga|Re: rust|Thickness of rust is approx. 10 times the thickness of the steel. I mean 2 mm of rust corresponds to 0.2 mm of steel which converted in rust. Mauro --- On Mon, 4/11/11, normanbywaite wrote: From: normanbywaite Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rust To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, April 11, 2011, 3:06 AM   Thanks for the replies. I wasn't so much asking how to deal with the rust i have found, but about how much of a time bomb the rust i haven't found is. I have been using a phosphoric acid rust converter. It says it converts the rust to a phosphate of iron, and forms a primer that you can paint over. That's all fine, i'm happy with the method i'll be using to deal with the rust i have found. My question was somewhat hypothetical about the rust i haven't yet found, and don't plan to go looking for just yet. I'm NOT doing a complete re-fit, i'm doing a patch up. The complete re-fit, if it happens at all, will happen in a year or two. I'll use the example of the rust i found behind the toilet. With the scraper i pulled off about 2mm of rust flakes. Then i used a wire brush to clean it up, then paint on the rust converter. Now, what if i'd left the rust alone? Let's assume the plating there (below the waterline) is no less than 3mm thick. Assuming the rust flakes are 'swolen' metal, then i presumably haven't 'lost' 2mm of hull plating, but have lost something less. If the rust constituted, say, 1/2 the hull plating, then i wonder how long it would take to rust through? 1 year? 2? A week? The reason i ask is that there may be other areas i haven't located, and might not find until/if i do a full re-fit in a year or two. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25766|25749|2011-04-16 16:48:18|IAN CAMPBELL|Re: Rope cutter on full keel designs?|Brent and all others on this excellent board Do you feel the need to install a shaft mounted rope cutter? Ian in Royston BC  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25767|25767|2011-04-17 11:54:13|SHANE ROTHWELL|Rope cutter|Ian, get just one line around your wheel and a line cutter pays for itself in seconds, often you are not aware it happened at all until you see the crap in your wake... I think Brent already has a design for on doesn't he? Even if he doesn't, they are well worth it. Hell, just kelp in the wheel can stop you dead on this coast.| 25768|25768|2011-04-17 12:04:01|SHANE ROTHWELL|Power Washers|Not true, no need to bring pressure washer into house, just remove the water by rolling it over couple of times & use compressed air to make sure no water is left. If it ain't there it can't freeze. Then again, if it's a gas powerd unit you want to make sure it will start, so use "sea foam" you can get from Cambodian tire, works a treat on petrol engines. Re: Electric Pressure washer Posted by: "Johnson" mickeyolaf@...   mickeyolaf Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:16 am (PDT) I have an electric 1750psi I use for cleaning cement around the house. I tried it once on my 750 Honda to clean around the chain area. Stupid idea. It took the Honda black frame paint off first shot. So I would be careful on your hull paint. P.S. My neighbor just gave me one of those blue Crappy Tire electric power washers to repair. She says she drained the water out but the motor still froze in her garage. The seals blew. If u buy one keep it in the house in the winter. There's not much room for error with chinese stuff. Doesn't take much to break it.| 25769|25722|2011-04-17 17:49:55|William|Re: Design modification|Thank you all and especially Brent for quick responses and great information. I am currently steaming West out of Costa Rica on a Research Vessel for a couple of months. So I have plenty of time to plan construction when I arrive back in the States in June. In the mean time I will read the groups input with interest. Cheers, Bill --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > While major scale up throws everything out of porportion, areas go up by square root, volume goes up by the cube root, etc etc, a small scale up of 6% would be OK for the 26. That would give you the 8 1/2 ft beam and just over 27 ft length you seek. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "William" wrote: > > > > Brent's designs are the most practical and achievable route to building a boat in a reasonable amount of time and money. I am sold. I got the book, got the DVD and got a kitchen pass (permission from the wife). I am good to go. > > Here lies the problem. If I am to build a boat, I want it to be my boat for my specific needs and taste. Thats not a horrible request or thought. I want a boat with an 8.5 beam and 28 to 30 feet. This violates the current 3 to 1 length to beam ratio. Never the less, I have my reasons. > > I understand that others have taken the BS26 and lengthened it to 27. I also understand that in the 36, a thicker 4 mm or 3/16 steel is used for the hull. I do not know what steel the 31 uses. > > Is there a risk in taking the 26 to 28 and staying with the thinner steel? I believe I saw a web site (Kims boat)where that builder was adding a plate of 4mm to the center area. Why was that done and why were the internal bracing done which I have not seen in other boats? Certainly bracing uy th ecube nder the mast tabernacle is needed and required in absence of a compression post. > > Do I go with the 31 and play with the numbers? Sure wish there were study plans. Give me your best advice oh metal working wizards! > > > > Thanks in advance, Bill > > > | 25770|25767|2011-04-18 11:43:38|haidan|Re: Rope cutter|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, SHANE ROTHWELL wrote: > > Ian, > > get just one line around your wheel and a line cutter pays for itself in > seconds, often you are not aware it happened at all until you see the crap in > your wake... > > I think Brent already has a design for on doesn't he? > > Even if he doesn't, they are well worth it. Hell, just kelp in the wheel can > stop you dead on this coast. I believe the line cutter built in to these Brent boats is a 1/4 inch welded in above the shaft tube which you bolt a knife blade or sharpened stainless to it| 25771|25749|2011-04-18 17:51:13|brentswain38|Re: Rope cutter on full keel designs?|Yes,definitely. I have apiece of 1/4 inch flatbar welded above my stern tube. I bolt a piece of 1/4 inch ss plate, with a sharpened outer edge, to this, with the sharpened edge running down at a 45 degree angle , the bottom tip just touching the prop hub.If the engine pushed forward, it will machine just enough of the prop hub to make a perfect fit. Any line around the prop tightens itself on the sharp edge of this blade, cutting it instantly. It has proven itself --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, IAN CAMPBELL wrote: > > > Brent and all others on this excellent board > > Do you feel the need to install a shaft mounted rope cutter? > > Ian in Royston BC� > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25772|25772|2011-04-19 14:30:09|badpirate36|require a new welder/location|I need to have the tang for my inner forestay that the rigger made welded to the foredeck of my aluminium bs36. I had a fellow lined up to do the welding while in the water. I assumed he could bring his equipment down the dock to my boat, however his equipment is dedicated to his truck and is only able to reach 100'. Does anybody know of a suitable location here in the lower mainland? Fail'in that, could anybody recomend a aluminium welder that could bring his equipment down the dock to my boat. I'd prefer not to haul out till late May if it can be avoided. Thanx Tom| 25773|25772|2011-04-19 15:11:13|Ben Okopnik|Re: require a new welder/location|On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 06:30:00PM -0000, badpirate36 wrote: > I need to have the tang for my inner forestay that the rigger made > welded to the foredeck of my aluminium bs36. I had a fellow lined up > to do the welding while in the water. I assumed he could bring his > equipment down the dock to my boat, however his equipment is dedicated > to his truck and is only able to reach 100'. Does anybody know of a > suitable location here in the lower mainland? Fail'in that, could > anybody recomend a aluminium welder that could bring his equipment > down the dock to my boat. I'd prefer not to haul out till late May if > it can be avoided. Unless you're doing really fine precision work, you can get Al rods that you can use with a regular stick welder. At that point, any weldor can do the job. Better yet, spend about $200 at Harbor Freight and get yourself a MIG rig. They're tiny, but they work pretty well: one of the people in my welding class bought one and brought it to school, and I had a chance to try it out. You won't raise any skyscrapers with it, but for servicing a small boat, it should do everything you need. 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| 25774|25774|2011-04-19 18:19:57|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|mast size VS lenght|Hi Brent, I can put my hand on a use 45ft aluminium mast for what seems like a reasonable price. The cross section mesure around 7in. x 4.6 in. It seems to me a little small in diameter for the lenght. What do you think? A good buy? or should I keep on building the 6in. steel mast I first wanted to make? Dilemma; make a mast or buy already built???? Martin.| 25775|25774|2011-04-19 18:29:12|martin demers|Re: mast size VS lenght|the wall thickness is 2.8mm, thin compare to my 1/8in thick 6in. steel tube. martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mdemers2005@... Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:19:45 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] mast size VS lenght Hi Brent, I can put my hand on a use 45ft aluminium mast for what seems like a reasonable price. The cross section mesure around 7in. x 4.6 in. It seems to me a little small in diameter for the lenght. What do you think? A good buy? or should I keep on building the 6in. steel mast I first wanted to make? Dilemma; make a mast or buy already built???? Martin. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25776|25774|2011-04-19 19:18:36|Aaron Williams|Re: mast size VS lenght|.110 inches Sure seams light to me. What did it come off of? Was it deck stepped or keel stepped ________________________________ From: martin demers To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, April 19, 2011 2:29:03 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] mast size VS lenght the wall thickness is 2.8mm, thin compare to my 1/8in thick 6in. steel tube. martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mdemers2005@... Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:19:45 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] mast size VS lenght   Hi Brent, I can put my hand on a use 45ft aluminium mast for what seems like a reasonable price. The cross section mesure around 7in. x 4.6 in. It seems to me a little small in diameter for the lenght. What do you think? A good buy? or should I keep on building the 6in. steel mast I first wanted to make? Dilemma; make a mast or buy already built???? 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]| 25777|25772|2011-04-19 19:21:07|Gary H. Lucas|Re: require a new welder/location|Years ago I did some aluminum welding with stick rods. The results were very disappointing and the welds were not pretty and quite brittle. I’ve seen them used by others for repairs that are non structural, and they are okay for that. The little Mig welders are not for aluminum. Aluminum requires that you use the spray mode transfer, which requires a lot more voltage than the little units can produce. I’ve written extensively here about how to do aluminum welding. Also aluminum MIG welding mostly uses a spool gun because pushing aluminum wire through a hose is really troublesome. I’d just find a marina where the guy can bring his truck up close. Gary H. Lucas From: Ben Okopnik Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 3:11 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] require a new welder/location On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 06:30:00PM -0000, badpirate36 wrote: > I need to have the tang for my inner forestay that the rigger made > welded to the foredeck of my aluminium bs36. I had a fellow lined up > to do the welding while in the water. I assumed he could bring his > equipment down the dock to my boat, however his equipment is dedicated > to his truck and is only able to reach 100'. Does anybody know of a > suitable location here in the lower mainland? Fail'in that, could > anybody recomend a aluminium welder that could bring his equipment > down the dock to my boat. I'd prefer not to haul out till late May if > it can be avoided. Unless you're doing really fine precision work, you can get Al rods that you can use with a regular stick welder. At that point, any weldor can do the job. Better yet, spend about $200 at Harbor Freight and get yourself a MIG rig. They're tiny, but they work pretty well: one of the people in my welding class bought one and brought it to school, and I had a chance to try it out. You won't raise any skyscrapers with it, but for servicing a small boat, it should do everything you need. 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 Gary H. Lucas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25778|25772|2011-04-19 20:05:58|Mark Hamill|Re: require a new welder/location|Blasphemer that I am--how about making up the tang and bolting it to the deck and then welding at some future date if you wanted--the other thought is why the hurry?? May is really close. All the best, MarkH I need to have the tang for my inner forestay that the rigger made welded to the foredeck of my aluminium bs36. I had a fellow lined up to do the welding while in the water. I assumed he could bring his equipment down the dock to my boat, however his equipment is dedicated to his truck and is only able to reach 100'. Does anybody know of a suitable location here in the lower mainland? Fail'in that, could anybody recomend a aluminium welder that could bring his equipment down the dock to my boat. I'd prefer not to haul out till late May if it can be avoided. Thanx Tom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25779|25772|2011-04-19 20:14:10|David Frantz|Re: require a new welder/location|Generally I would agree with the idea that welding aluminum is a demanding job. However at least one company has a small welder that supports a spool gun. Lincoln comes to mind and they have this spool gun http://www.lincolnelectric.com/assets/en_US/Products/literature/E1221.pdf for small mig welders. They do rate their small portable migs for aluminum. That being said I'm not convinced they are suitable for this project as I imagine the tang would be fairly heavy and such welders are generally suitable for sheet metal only. The other problem is that I don't generally recommend Mig for large outdoors projects. The wind just makes the shielding gas containment a big issue. For repairs though a little screening from the wind would do wonders. One problem with aluminum is the demand for high amperage. I've seen figures quoted as high as one amp per thousands of material thickness. So 1/8' aluminum could demand 125 amps of current to weld properly. Thus advertising (from honest welder suppliers) that the small Migs are suitable for welding aluminum sheet metal. I see this as another reason to prefer steel, you could weld this tang on with just about anything then. More importantly you would get a much better quality weld DIY. Finding another Marina or a different place to park in the current Marina is a very good suggestion. This really shouldn't be a problem in most Marinas especially for a quick job. I'm actually surprised the potential welder was not more pro active in getting the welding job done. Maybe he had to much work to bother. "badpirate" should talk to the marina operator about a solution to this problem and at the same time look for a welder that is hungry or needs to pay for his own boat. Dave On Apr 19, 2011, at 7:21 PM000, Gary H. Lucas wrote: > Years ago I did some aluminum welding with stick rods. The results were very disappointing and the welds were not pretty and quite brittle. I’ve seen them used by others for repairs that are non structural, and they are okay for that. The little Mig welders are not for aluminum. Aluminum requires that you use the spray mode transfer, which requires a lot more voltage than the little units can produce. I’ve written extensively here about how to do aluminum welding. Also aluminum MIG welding mostly uses a spool gun because pushing aluminum wire through a hose is really troublesome. > > I’d just find a marina where the guy can bring his truck up close. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Ben Okopnik > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 3:11 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] require a new welder/location > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 06:30:00PM -0000, badpirate36 wrote: >> I need to have the tang for my inner forestay that the rigger made >> welded to the foredeck of my aluminium bs36. I had a fellow lined up >> to do the welding while in the water. I assumed he could bring his >> equipment down the dock to my boat, however his equipment is dedicated >> to his truck and is only able to reach 100'. Does anybody know of a >> suitable location here in the lower mainland? Fail'in that, could >> anybody recomend a aluminium welder that could bring his equipment >> down the dock to my boat. I'd prefer not to haul out till late May if >> it can be avoided. > > Unless you're doing really fine precision work, you can get Al rods that > you can use with a regular stick welder. At that point, any weldor can > do the job. > > Better yet, spend about $200 at Harbor Freight and get yourself a MIG > rig. They're tiny, but they work pretty well: one of the people in my > welding class bought one and brought it to school, and I had a chance to > try it out. You won't raise any skyscrapers with it, but for servicing a > small boat, it should do everything you need. > > 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 > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > [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 > > > | 25780|25772|2011-04-19 20:47:02|Ben Okopnik|Re: require a new welder/location|On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 07:21:24PM -0400, Gary H. Lucas wrote: > Years ago I did some aluminum welding with stick rods. The results > were very disappointing and the welds were not pretty and quite > brittle. I’ve seen them used by others for repairs that are non > structural, and they are okay for that. The little Mig welders are > not for aluminum. Aluminum requires that you use the spray mode > transfer, which requires a lot more voltage than the little units can > produce. I’ve written extensively here about how to do aluminum > welding. Also aluminum MIG welding mostly uses a spool gun because > pushing aluminum wire through a hose is really troublesome. > > I’d just find a marina where the guy can bring his truck up close. When it comes to welding, Gary's advice is undeniably better than mine. If he says I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. :) (Gary - thanks again for the great MIG and TIG advice. Amazing just how fast you _do_ have to move when you crank it up, but it does produce an excellent weld.) 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| 25781|25774|2011-04-19 20:54:54|martin demers|Re: mast size VS lenght|was from a 2005 Beneteau OC 323, it got scratch when the boat was new and the inssurance paid a new one to the owner. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: akenai@... Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:18:35 -0700 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] mast size VS lenght .110 inches Sure seams light to me. What did it come off of? Was it deck stepped or keel stepped ________________________________ From: martin demers To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, April 19, 2011 2:29:03 PM Subject: RE: [origamiboats] mast size VS lenght the wall thickness is 2.8mm, thin compare to my 1/8in thick 6in. steel tube. martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mdemers2005@... Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:19:45 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] mast size VS lenght Hi Brent, I can put my hand on a use 45ft aluminium mast for what seems like a reasonable price. The cross section mesure around 7in. x 4.6 in. It seems to me a little small in diameter for the lenght. What do you think? A good buy? or should I keep on building the 6in. steel mast I first wanted to make? Dilemma; make a mast or buy already built???? 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] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25782|25782|2011-04-20 07:14:24|Greg and Christine|Colvin Steel Schooner Ashore at Fire Island|This isn't an origami design. It is a steel pinky schooner designed by Tom Colvin. It went ashore on Fire Island, NY, on April 5. It has withstood some serious surf and is now well buried in the sand, but the masts are still standing and the hull and deck appear intact. A fiberglass boat would have been reduced to shards. The Tugster has been posting update photos on his blog: http://tugster.wordpress.com/ .| 25783|25772|2011-04-20 10:42:17|SHANE ROTHWELL|require a new welder/location|require a new welder/location Tom, Used to work for that old bastard Philipson @ Tymac doing the pilot launch gig, & just round the corner...If you go to the north end of main street in Hongcouver. The Main street dock. Ruff & skuzzy so you want to keep an eye out & you will be mooring against the pilings so you want to have a plank & all that together, but you could pull up pretty much any truck to right along side, dangle the leads over & have at it. Shane Posted by: "badpirate36" badpirate@...   badpirate36 Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:30 am (PDT) I need to have the tang for my inner forestay that the rigger made welded to the foredeck of my aluminium bs36. I had a fellow lined up to do the welding while in the water. I assumed he could bring his equipment down the dock to my boat, however his equipment is dedicated to his truck and is only able to reach 100'. Does anybody know of a suitable location here in the lower mainland? Fail'in that, could anybody recomend a aluminium welder that could bring his equipment down the dock to my boat. I'd prefer not to haul out till late May if it can be avoided. Thanx Tom| 25784|25774|2011-04-20 18:28:17|brentswain38|Re: mast size VS lenght|Way too light. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > the wall thickness is 2.8mm, thin compare to my 1/8in thick 6in. steel tube. > > martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:19:45 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] mast size VS lenght > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > I can put my hand on a use 45ft aluminium mast for what seems like a reasonable price. The cross section mesure around 7in. x 4.6 in. > It seems to me a little small in diameter for the lenght. > What do you think? > A good buy? or should I keep on building the 6in. steel mast I first wanted to make? > Dilemma; make a mast or buy already built???? > > Martin. > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25785|25774|2011-04-20 18:35:41|brentswain38|Re: mast size VS lenght|5 1/2 by 8 inch with a 3/16th wall is what they mostly use for the 36. How thick is the wall on that one? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Hi Brent, > > I can put my hand on a use 45ft aluminium mast for what seems like a reasonable price. The cross section mesure around 7in. x 4.6 in. > It seems to me a little small in diameter for the lenght. > What do you think? > A good buy? or should I keep on building the 6in. steel mast I first wanted to make? > Dilemma; make a mast or buy already built???? > > Martin. > | 25786|25772|2011-04-20 18:35:43|brentswain38|Re: require a new welder/location|The govt dock at Horseshoe Bay may work. Then there's the fishermans dock, under the Burrard St Bridge. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > I need to have the tang for my inner forestay that the rigger made welded to the foredeck of my aluminium bs36. I had a fellow lined up to do the welding while in the water. I assumed he could bring his equipment down the dock to my boat, however his equipment is dedicated to his truck and is only able to reach 100'. Does anybody know of a suitable location here in the lower mainland? Fail'in that, could anybody recomend a aluminium welder that could bring his equipment down the dock to my boat. I'd prefer not to haul out till late May if it can be avoided. > Thanx > Tom > | 25787|25782|2011-04-20 18:37:23|brentswain38|Re: Colvin Steel Schooner Ashore at Fire Island|Those boats are only ten gauge plate. A fibreglass boat would have broken up in minutes. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Greg and Christine" wrote: > > This isn't an origami design. It is a steel pinky schooner designed by Tom Colvin. It went ashore on Fire Island, NY, on April 5. It has withstood some serious surf and is now well buried in the sand, but the masts are still standing and the hull and deck appear intact. A fiberglass boat would have been reduced to shards. The Tugster has been posting update photos on his blog: http://tugster.wordpress.com/ . > | 25788|25774|2011-04-20 20:52:08|martin demers|Re: mast size VS lenght|2.8mm To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:27:31 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast size VS lenght 5 1/2 by 8 inch with a 3/16th wall is what they mostly use for the 36. How thick is the wall on that one? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Hi Brent, > > I can put my hand on a use 45ft aluminium mast for what seems like a reasonable price. The cross section mesure around 7in. x 4.6 in. > It seems to me a little small in diameter for the lenght. > What do you think? > A good buy? or should I keep on building the 6in. steel mast I first wanted to make? > Dilemma; make a mast or buy already built???? > > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25789|25774|2011-04-20 20:53:17|martin demers|Re: mast size VS lenght|ok I will pass. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:28:16 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: mast size VS lenght Way too light. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, martin demers wrote: > > > the wall thickness is 2.8mm, thin compare to my 1/8in thick 6in. steel tube. > > martin. > > > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mdemers2005@... > Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:19:45 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] mast size VS lenght > > > > > > > Hi Brent, > > I can put my hand on a use 45ft aluminium mast for what seems like a reasonable price. The cross section mesure around 7in. x 4.6 in. > It seems to me a little small in diameter for the lenght. > What do you think? > A good buy? or should I keep on building the 6in. steel mast I first wanted to make? > Dilemma; make a mast or buy already built???? > > Martin. > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25790|25772|2011-04-20 23:05:03|Gary H. Lucas|Re: require a new welder/location|Ben, Time is money! I once had a welder who was paid piece work standing around for 45 minutes while I adjusted his welder. He was mad about it, until he realized he was doing 15 pieces a day instead of 10, and he kept real quiet about that! A guy once asked me to fill a hole he had burned in some thin aluminum trying to weld it. I had it filled before he got his helmet down to watch. H asked why I did that. I said “That’s how you fill a hole in aluminum!” Gary H. Lucas From: Ben Okopnik Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 8:46 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] require a new welder/location On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 07:21:24PM -0400, Gary H. Lucas wrote: > Years ago I did some aluminum welding with stick rods. The results > were very disappointing and the welds were not pretty and quite > brittle. I’ve seen them used by others for repairs that are non > structural, and they are okay for that. The little Mig welders are > not for aluminum. Aluminum requires that you use the spray mode > transfer, which requires a lot more voltage than the little units can > produce. I’ve written extensively here about how to do aluminum > welding. Also aluminum MIG welding mostly uses a spool gun because > pushing aluminum wire through a hose is really troublesome. > > I’d just find a marina where the guy can bring his truck up close. When it comes to welding, Gary's advice is undeniably better than mine. If he says I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. :) (Gary - thanks again for the great MIG and TIG advice. Amazing just how fast you _do_ have to move when you crank it up, but it does produce an excellent weld.) 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 Gary H. Lucas Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25791|25772|2011-04-20 23:33:52|Ben Okopnik|Re: require a new welder/location|On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:05:22PM -0400, Gary H. Lucas wrote: > Ben, > Time is money! I once had a welder who was paid piece work standing > around for 45 minutes while I adjusted his welder. He was mad about > it, until he realized he was doing 15 pieces a day instead of 10, and > he kept real quiet about that! If I had eight hours to chop down a tree, I'd spend six hours sharpening my axe. -- Abraham Lincoln Right on. :) > A guy once asked me to fill a hole he > had burned in some thin aluminum trying to weld it. I had it filled > before he got his helmet down to watch. H asked why I did that. I > said “That’s how you fill a hole in aluminum!” Man, that's the truth; it took me a bit of practice, drilling holes and filling them, to get that figured out. If you're not quick, you're just going to burn it bigger and bigger - and if you turn it down lower, you're going to keep sticking. Hot and fast works every time, and leaves a pretty, clean, smooth weld. I had an excellent teacher, a man who had spent 30 years in the Navy as a welder and who really had the gift for teaching as well. Ken could weld a thought to a ray of sunshine, or just about anything to anything else, and make it look easy. At one point toward the end of the course, he wasn't feeling well, so he called a friend of his, a guy who was the senior welding supervisor for the city of Jacksonville, to fill in for him... it was like going from Einstein to Frank-einstein. :) Watching this guy "demonstrate" how to TIG-weld thin aluminum and screw it up really badly, and then pretend like he meant to do it ("this is what we call 'sugar', and it's what you want to avoid when you TIG stuff...") was really sad. By contrast, the day before, Ken had been lying down in his office with a headache, and I was trying to learn how to MIG in a booth a couple of hundred feet away; Ken called my wife over, and told her "Tell Ben to turn his voltage up 0.4 volts; it'll go a lot smoother." Ken retired right after that semester. A damn shame, and a big loss to the world... but he was already in his mid-70s, and had been teaching at that school for over 20 years. 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| 25792|19001|2011-04-23 18:01:01|brentswain38|Common screwups|With the door latch, I wouldn't go for anything lighter than a 3/4 inch ss rod for the dog down. Anything lighter will bend, before it sucks the hatch down tightly onto the gasket. I just saw one made out of 1/4 inch stainles, much too light. The lock was on the outside, a big mistake, as it lets everyone know you are not aboard, and is very easy to break. It also leaves the lock exposed to the weather. I was just told of another 36 which had the underside of the foredeck over welded, which results in hull distortion at that point. With 1/8th inch 7024 on the top, the weld is thicker than the deck plate, and far stronger , eliminating the need to weld the underside.| 25793|25793|2011-04-26 22:04:57|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|maximum lenght steel mast|Hi Brent, What maximum lenght would you go for a steel mast on a 37ft boat (weight wise)? Martin.| 25794|25793|2011-04-27 18:17:28|brentswain38|Re: maximum lenght steel mast|For mine,around 47 feet. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Hi Brent, > > What maximum lenght would you go for a steel mast on a 37ft boat (weight wise)? > > Martin. > | 25795|25793|2011-04-27 22:34:51|martin demers|Re: maximum lenght steel mast|Brent, You have a 47ft steel mast on your boat...wooh! I am surprise. I wanted to stay under 45ft, specially if I was going to use steel. you reassure me, with my 5ft 8in draft I probably dont have much to worry... Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:13:16 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: maximum lenght steel mast For mine,around 47 feet. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > Hi Brent, > > What maximum lenght would you go for a steel mast on a 37ft boat (weight wise)? > > Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25796|25796|2011-04-28 10:48:33|jc_luddite|keel question|Hello, I was wondering if someone could compare the differences between a Swain boat, 36 or 40, with bilge keels or a regular single fin keel? I wanted to know the pros and cons of both styles especially when hove too, difference in boat motion on different points of sail and tracking ability and ultimate stability. any insight would be most appreciated. thank you.| 25797|25797|2011-04-28 11:25:56|badpirate36|Head location?|I'll be hauling out to put in my thru hulls, in a couple of weeks. I had planned to put the head under the vee-berth just like the old boat; Why not, worked good, right? Wrong, after an innocent post on my face book, it seems every gal I ever took sail'in hated the old head! who knew? Which axis works best in a seaway fore/aft, abeam? what about location bow, amidship? what's the poop on the shitter /.o) Tom| 25798|25797|2011-04-28 15:56:37|brentswain38|Re: Head location?|Facing fore and aft is far more comfortable when the boat is heeled, especially if you have shoulder rests. Where depends on your layout. I have mine in the aft corner of the wheelhouse. Lets me see out the front windows while giving birth to a conservative, handy when single handing. This lets me leave the rest of the interior wide open, eliminating full height bulkheads. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "badpirate36" wrote: > > I'll be hauling out to put in my thru hulls, in a couple of weeks. I had planned to put the head under the vee-berth just like the old boat; Why not, worked good, right? Wrong, after an innocent post on my face book, it seems every gal I ever took sail'in hated the old head! who knew? > Which axis works best in a seaway fore/aft, abeam? what about location bow, amidship? > > what's the poop on the shitter /.o) > Tom > | 25799|25796|2011-04-28 16:02:30|brentswain38|Re: keel question|We had a race between a 36 fin keel and a twin keeler. They were closely matched, anywhere but close hauled, where the single keeler had a slight edge. The ultimate stability of the twin keeler is less, no doubt, but still not a problem. The rolling motion of the twin keeler is considerably less than that of a single keeler, the twin keels having a considerable roll dampening effect. The tracking ability is excellent on both, as the hull itself is well balanced. I prefer a drogue of the stern for gale riding, as short keeled boats tend to lay beam on and fore reach when hove to. I have hove to well, by backing the reefed main to windward, and lashing the helm hard down to leeward. In stronger gales, I would feel safer with a drogue of the stern quarter. The single keel has considerably more tankage in the keel, than the twin keeler. The single keel, being on the centreline, is naturally far stronger than you could ever make twin keels. Twin keels are a huge advantage in areas of high tides, less in areas of small tides, except for the advantage of shallower draft. Ground on a high tide and you have major problems getting a twin keeler off, in areas of small tides. One could push an empty inflatable between the keels and inflate it, for several thousand pounds of extra buoyancy.. I procrastinated long between single or twin keels on my current boat. I'm sure glad I went for twin keels. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jc_luddite" wrote: > > Hello, > > I was wondering if someone could compare the differences between a Swain boat, 36 or 40, with bilge keels or a regular single fin keel? I wanted to know the pros and cons of both styles especially when hove too, difference in boat motion on different points of sail and tracking ability and ultimate stability. > > any insight would be most appreciated. > > thank you. > | 25800|25796|2011-04-28 16:40:34|Matt Malone|Lying with a drogue on a stern quarter|Brent, you have mentioned a few times how you prefer to tie a drogue to the stern quarter, and anchor tied to a stern quarter. When anchored, that makes sense, the boat is less aerodynamic, gets less "lift" whereas a boat anchored from the bow tends to alternate hunting to starboard and then, when the rode is at a significant angle to the wind and pulling to port, the bow comes about through the wind and the boat then hunts to the port. Am I right in assuming that by drogue, you mean a chute that is intended to essentially stop the boat relative to the seas ? The book (Coles), and others I have read give a number of tactics, one of which is a drogue on a brindle to hold the boat bow-quarter to the seas. Now I can see this, sort of, the bow sort of cuts into really steep / breaking waves, and if it is a tall breaker that will put the boat over, it is still likely to roll, and not pitch-pole like a bow head-on into the waves might. Each time you have mentioned this, I wonder about how the stern quarter to a big breaker would work. The stern transom is pretty big, not sharp, and has lots of flotation. Wouldn't a large wave lift the stern easily? I have thought, does this rely on any really big wave filling the cockpit, and weighing down the stern to help the wave go over ? How does this work as the breaking portion of a wave gets taller ? And while I am asking, have you ever experienced the mast of a boat you were in touching the water ? Was a breaking sea involved ? What was the motion of the boat ? Matt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:43:37 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: keel question We had a race between a 36 fin keel and a twin keeler. They were closely matched, anywhere but close hauled, where the single keeler had a slight edge. The ultimate stability of the twin keeler is less, no doubt, but still not a problem. The rolling motion of the twin keeler is considerably less than that of a single keeler, the twin keels having a considerable roll dampening effect. The tracking ability is excellent on both, as the hull itself is well balanced. I prefer a drogue of the stern for gale riding, as short keeled boats tend to lay beam on and fore reach when hove to. I have hove to well, by backing the reefed main to windward, and lashing the helm hard down to leeward. In stronger gales, I would feel safer with a drogue of the stern quarter. The single keel has considerably more tankage in the keel, than the twin keeler. The single keel, being on the centreline, is naturally far stronger than you could ever make twin keels. Twin keels are a huge advantage in areas of high tides, less in areas of small tides, except for the advantage of shallower draft. Ground on a high tide and you have major problems getting a twin keeler off, in areas of small tides. One could push an empty inflatable between the keels and inflate it, for several thousand pounds of extra buoyancy.. I procrastinated long between single or twin keels on my current boat. I'm sure glad I went for twin keels. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jc_luddite" wrote: > > Hello, > > I was wondering if someone could compare the differences between a Swain boat, 36 or 40, with bilge keels or a regular single fin keel? I wanted to know the pros and cons of both styles especially when hove too, difference in boat motion on different points of sail and tracking ability and ultimate stability. > > any insight would be most appreciated. > > thank you. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25801|25796|2011-04-29 11:35:22|jc_luddite|Re: keel question|Thanks Brent. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > We had a race between a 36 fin keel and a twin keeler. They were closely matched, anywhere but close hauled, where the single keeler had a slight edge. > The ultimate stability of the twin keeler is less, no doubt, but still not a problem. The rolling motion of the twin keeler is considerably less than that of a single keeler, the twin keels having a considerable roll dampening effect. The tracking ability is excellent on both, as the hull itself is well balanced. I prefer a drogue of the stern for gale riding, as short keeled boats tend to lay beam on and fore reach when hove to. I have hove to well, by backing the reefed main to windward, and lashing the helm hard down to leeward. In stronger gales, I would feel safer with a drogue of the stern quarter. > The single keel has considerably more tankage in the keel, than the twin keeler. The single keel, being on the centreline, is naturally far stronger than you could ever make twin keels. > Twin keels are a huge advantage in areas of high tides, less in areas of small tides, except for the advantage of shallower draft. > Ground on a high tide and you have major problems getting a twin keeler off, in areas of small tides. One could push an empty inflatable between the keels and inflate it, for several thousand pounds of extra buoyancy.. > I procrastinated long between single or twin keels on my current boat. I'm sure glad I went for twin keels. . > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jc_luddite" wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I was wondering if someone could compare the differences between a Swain boat, 36 or 40, with bilge keels or a regular single fin keel? I wanted to know the pros and cons of both styles especially when hove too, difference in boat motion on different points of sail and tracking ability and ultimate stability. > > > > any insight would be most appreciated. > > > > thank you. > > > | 25802|25796|2011-04-29 14:53:14|brentswain38|Re: Lying with a drogue on a stern quarter|Pardy's had good luck taking a line from the bow chute line to the stern quarter, to take the head sea at an angle to the bow. I haven't tried that, as streaming a drogue or parachute from the quarter is all I have needed, and it is much easier to do in rough water. I have never taken significant water in the cockpit at sea that way, as there is plenty of buoyancy aft to prevent it. I have never seen the advantage of a bridle to centre the rode. One 36 , on her way to the Horn at the moment, said it got a bit rough with the bridle. With the drogue off the stern quarter, the windage on the rig stops the rolling, and makes things far more comfortable. Centreing it would be far more rolly. The only time I got the cockpit filled repeatedly was in Nanaimo Harbour in a sudden storm, while tied to a dock. Tried a surplus chute once. Looked like nylon, felt like nylon. Was cotton and broke up in an hour in 40 knots of wind. Test them with a match and see if it melts or chars. None of the drogues I have used has stopped me dead in the water. My latest is the gale rider type. Haven't tried it yet , but it was easy to make up, using a big mooring ball as a mold. Stapled it together over the five ft diameter ball, then took it home to sew up. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Brent, you have mentioned a few times how you prefer to tie a drogue to the stern quarter, and anchor tied to a stern quarter. When anchored, that makes sense, the boat is less aerodynamic, gets less "lift" whereas a boat anchored from the bow tends to alternate hunting to starboard and then, when the rode is at a significant angle to the wind and pulling to port, the bow comes about through the wind and the boat then hunts to the port. > > Am I right in assuming that by drogue, you mean a chute that is intended to essentially stop the boat relative to the seas ? > > The book (Coles), and others I have read give a number of tactics, one of which is a drogue on a brindle to hold the boat bow-quarter to the seas. Now I can see this, sort of, the bow sort of cuts into really steep / breaking waves, and if it is a tall breaker that will put the boat over, it is still likely to roll, and not pitch-pole like a bow head-on into the waves might. > > Each time you have mentioned this, I wonder about how the stern quarter to a big breaker would work. The stern transom is pretty big, not sharp, and has lots of flotation. Wouldn't a large wave lift the stern easily? I have thought, does this rely on any really big wave filling the cockpit, and weighing down the stern to help the wave go over ? How does this work as the breaking portion of a wave gets taller ? > > And while I am asking, have you ever experienced the mast of a boat you were in touching the water ? Was a breaking sea involved ? What was the motion of the boat ? > > Matt > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:43:37 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: keel question > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We had a race between a 36 fin keel and a twin keeler. They were closely matched, anywhere but close hauled, where the single keeler had a slight edge. > > The ultimate stability of the twin keeler is less, no doubt, but still not a problem. The rolling motion of the twin keeler is considerably less than that of a single keeler, the twin keels having a considerable roll dampening effect. The tracking ability is excellent on both, as the hull itself is well balanced. I prefer a drogue of the stern for gale riding, as short keeled boats tend to lay beam on and fore reach when hove to. I have hove to well, by backing the reefed main to windward, and lashing the helm hard down to leeward. In stronger gales, I would feel safer with a drogue of the stern quarter. > > The single keel has considerably more tankage in the keel, than the twin keeler. The single keel, being on the centreline, is naturally far stronger than you could ever make twin keels. > > Twin keels are a huge advantage in areas of high tides, less in areas of small tides, except for the advantage of shallower draft. > > Ground on a high tide and you have major problems getting a twin keeler off, in areas of small tides. One could push an empty inflatable between the keels and inflate it, for several thousand pounds of extra buoyancy.. > > I procrastinated long between single or twin keels on my current boat. I'm sure glad I went for twin keels. . > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jc_luddite" wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I was wondering if someone could compare the differences between a Swain boat, 36 or 40, with bilge keels or a regular single fin keel? I wanted to know the pros and cons of both styles especially when hove too, difference in boat motion on different points of sail and tracking ability and ultimate stability. > > > > > > any insight would be most appreciated. > > > > > > thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25803|25796|2011-04-29 14:54:44|mauro gonzaga|Re: keel question|Thanks, concise and interesting. More inf.please: draft of both solutions. Mauro ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 9:43 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: keel question   We had a race between a 36 fin keel and a twin keeler. They were closely matched, anywhere but close hauled, where the single keeler had a slight edge. The ultimate stability of the twin keeler is less, no doubt, but still not a problem. The rolling motion of the twin keeler is considerably less than that of a single keeler, the twin keels having a considerable roll dampening effect. The tracking ability is excellent on both, as the hull itself is well balanced. I prefer a drogue of the stern for gale riding, as short keeled boats tend to lay beam on and fore reach when hove to. I have hove to well, by backing the reefed main to windward, and lashing the helm hard down to leeward. In stronger gales, I would feel safer with a drogue of the stern quarter. The single keel has considerably more tankage in the keel, than the twin keeler. The single keel, being on the centreline, is naturally far stronger than you could ever make twin keels. Twin keels are a huge advantage in areas of high tides, less in areas of small tides, except for the advantage of shallower draft. Ground on a high tide and you have major problems getting a twin keeler off, in areas of small tides. One could push an empty inflatable between the keels and inflate it, for several thousand pounds of extra buoyancy.. I procrastinated long between single or twin keels on my current boat. I'm sure glad I went for twin keels. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "jc_luddite" wrote: > > Hello, > > I was wondering if someone could compare the differences between a Swain boat, 36 or 40, with bilge keels or a regular single fin keel? I wanted to know the pros and cons of both styles especially when hove too, difference in boat motion on different points of sail and tracking ability and ultimate stability. > > any insight would be most appreciated. > > thank you. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25804|25782|2011-05-01 11:48:02|Greg and Christine|Re: Colvin Steel Schooner Ashore at Fire Island|Several discussion boards have photos posted of her being dragged off the beach < http://www.noreast.com/discussion/ViewTopic.cfm?topic_ID=160533&page=4 >. One of the comments I saw stated that she is going to be cut up for scrap, but the hull and deck appear intact and the masts are still standing. I would expect her to be worth more in one piece. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Those boats are only ten gauge plate. A fibreglass boat would have broken up in minutes. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Greg and Christine" wrote: > > > > This isn't an origami design. It is a steel pinky schooner designed by Tom Colvin. It went ashore on Fire Island, NY, on April 5. It has withstood some serious surf and is now well buried in the sand, but the masts are still standing and the hull and deck appear intact. A fiberglass boat would have been reduced to shards. The Tugster has been posting update photos on his blog: http://tugster.wordpress.com/ . > > > | 25805|25782|2011-05-02 03:33:20|David Frantz|Re: Colvin Steel Schooner Ashore at Fire Island|Finding people willing to take on such a project isn't easy. Plus the insurance company, if any, is likely involved. Sent from my iPhone On May 1, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Greg and Christine wrote: > Several discussion boards have photos posted of her being dragged off the beach < http://www.noreast.com/discussion/ViewTopic.cfm?topic_ID=160533&page=4 >. One of the comments I saw stated that she is going to be cut up for scrap, but the hull and deck appear intact and the masts are still standing. I would expect her to be worth more in one piece. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >> >> Those boats are only ten gauge plate. A fibreglass boat would have broken up in minutes. >> >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Greg and Christine" wrote: >>> >>> This isn't an origami design. It is a steel pinky schooner designed by Tom Colvin. It went ashore on Fire Island, NY, on April 5. It has withstood some serious surf and is now well buried in the sand, but the masts are still standing and the hull and deck appear intact. A fiberglass boat would have been reduced to shards. The Tugster has been posting update photos on his blog: http://tugster.wordpress.com/ . >>> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 25806|25782|2011-05-02 14:27:28|brentswain38|Re: Colvin Steel Schooner Ashore at Fire Island|Anything which wasn't made of steel would have broken up long ago, not only from the sea, but from the rough handling. You wouldn't have anything strong enough to pull on, to move her anywhere, without breaking her up. That is why I prefer a two point support for my mooring bits, the deck, and a point ten inches below decks. You could tow a boat anywhere with them. She looks easily salvageable. The insurance company would sell her cheap, to anyone who is interested. Those boats , however , are slower than bureaucrats . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > Finding people willing to take on such a project isn't easy. Plus the insurance company, if any, is likely involved. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 1, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Greg and Christine wrote: > > > Several discussion boards have photos posted of her being dragged off the beach < http://www.noreast.com/discussion/ViewTopic.cfm?topic_ID=160533&page=4 >. One of the comments I saw stated that she is going to be cut up for scrap, but the hull and deck appear intact and the masts are still standing. I would expect her to be worth more in one piece. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > >> > >> Those boats are only ten gauge plate. A fibreglass boat would have broken up in minutes. > >> > >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Greg and Christine" wrote: > >>> > >>> This isn't an origami design. It is a steel pinky schooner designed by Tom Colvin. It went ashore on Fire Island, NY, on April 5. It has withstood some serious surf and is now well buried in the sand, but the masts are still standing and the hull and deck appear intact. A fiberglass boat would have been reduced to shards. The Tugster has been posting update photos on his blog: http://tugster.wordpress.com/ . > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > | 25807|25782|2011-05-03 09:20:53|Greg and Christine|Re: Colvin Steel Schooner Ashore at Fire Island|From another message board: "I looked at it saturday,everything is intact.The owner had to pay and give the boat up to the salvager.Beside the rudder being ripped off the boat can definetly be repaired." --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Anything which wasn't made of steel would have broken up long ago, not only from the sea, but from the rough handling. You wouldn't have anything strong enough to pull on, to move her anywhere, without breaking her up. That is why I prefer a two point support for my mooring bits, the deck, and a point ten inches below decks. You could tow a boat anywhere with them. > She looks easily salvageable. The insurance company would sell her cheap, to anyone who is interested. > Those boats , however , are slower than bureaucrats . > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > > > Finding people willing to take on such a project isn't easy. Plus the insurance company, if any, is likely involved. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On May 1, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Greg and Christine wrote: > > > > > Several discussion boards have photos posted of her being dragged off the beach < http://www.noreast.com/discussion/ViewTopic.cfm?topic_ID=160533&page=4 >. One of the comments I saw stated that she is going to be cut up for scrap, but the hull and deck appear intact and the masts are still standing. I would expect her to be worth more in one piece. > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > >> > > >> Those boats are only ten gauge plate. A fibreglass boat would have broken up in minutes. > > >> > > >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Greg and Christine" wrote: > > >>> > > >>> This isn't an origami design. It is a steel pinky schooner designed by Tom Colvin. It went ashore on Fire Island, NY, on April 5. It has withstood some serious surf and is now well buried in the sand, but the masts are still standing and the hull and deck appear intact. A fiberglass boat would have been reduced to shards. The Tugster has been posting update photos on his blog: http://tugster.wordpress.com/ . > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > | 25808|25782|2011-05-03 16:38:49|brentswain38|Re: Colvin Steel Schooner Ashore at Fire Island|When I think of how many people are busting their asses, and bankbooks, to get their first boat ,lets hope the salvager sells her as a boat, rather than scrap. We live in one of the most wasteful societies in human history. And they tell us to "Think Green." --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Greg and Christine" wrote: > > From another message board: "I looked at it saturday,everything is intact.The owner had to pay and give the boat up to the salvager.Beside the rudder being ripped off the boat can definetly be repaired." > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > Anything which wasn't made of steel would have broken up long ago, not only from the sea, but from the rough handling. You wouldn't have anything strong enough to pull on, to move her anywhere, without breaking her up. That is why I prefer a two point support for my mooring bits, the deck, and a point ten inches below decks. You could tow a boat anywhere with them. > > She looks easily salvageable. The insurance company would sell her cheap, to anyone who is interested. > > Those boats , however , are slower than bureaucrats . > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > > > > > Finding people willing to take on such a project isn't easy. Plus the insurance company, if any, is likely involved. > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > On May 1, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Greg and Christine wrote: > > > > > > > Several discussion boards have photos posted of her being dragged off the beach < http://www.noreast.com/discussion/ViewTopic.cfm?topic_ID=160533&page=4 >. One of the comments I saw stated that she is going to be cut up for scrap, but the hull and deck appear intact and the masts are still standing. I would expect her to be worth more in one piece. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Those boats are only ten gauge plate. A fibreglass boat would have broken up in minutes. > > > >> > > > >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Greg and Christine" wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> This isn't an origami design. It is a steel pinky schooner designed by Tom Colvin. It went ashore on Fire Island, NY, on April 5. It has withstood some serious surf and is now well buried in the sand, but the masts are still standing and the hull and deck appear intact. A fiberglass boat would have been reduced to shards. The Tugster has been posting update photos on his blog: http://tugster.wordpress.com/ . > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | 25809|25782|2011-05-03 17:41:37|martin demers|Re: Colvin Steel Schooner Ashore at Fire Island|why the owner dont keep his boat???? Martin. To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: greg_christine@... Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 13:20:42 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Colvin Steel Schooner Ashore at Fire Island From another message board: "I looked at it saturday,everything is intact.The owner had to pay and give the boat up to the salvager.Beside the rudder being ripped off the boat can definetly be repaired." --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > Anything which wasn't made of steel would have broken up long ago, not only from the sea, but from the rough handling. You wouldn't have anything strong enough to pull on, to move her anywhere, without breaking her up. That is why I prefer a two point support for my mooring bits, the deck, and a point ten inches below decks. You could tow a boat anywhere with them. > She looks easily salvageable. The insurance company would sell her cheap, to anyone who is interested. > Those boats , however , are slower than bureaucrats . > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > > > Finding people willing to take on such a project isn't easy. Plus the insurance company, if any, is likely involved. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On May 1, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Greg and Christine wrote: > > > > > Several discussion boards have photos posted of her being dragged off the beach < http://www.noreast.com/discussion/ViewTopic.cfm?topic_ID=160533&page=4 >. One of the comments I saw stated that she is going to be cut up for scrap, but the hull and deck appear intact and the masts are still standing. I would expect her to be worth more in one piece. > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > >> > > >> Those boats are only ten gauge plate. A fibreglass boat would have broken up in minutes. > > >> > > >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Greg and Christine" wrote: > > >>> > > >>> This isn't an origami design. It is a steel pinky schooner designed by Tom Colvin. It went ashore on Fire Island, NY, on April 5. It has withstood some serious surf and is now well buried in the sand, but the masts are still standing and the hull and deck appear intact. A fiberglass boat would have been reduced to shards. The Tugster has been posting update photos on his blog: http://tugster.wordpress.com/ . > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > 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] | 25810|25782|2011-05-03 21:41:39|David Frantz|Re: Colvin Steel Schooner Ashore at Fire Island|We hear a lot of that "think green" nonsense at work! Yet turn your back and anything you might use on your job gets thrown out. Extremely frustrating! Sent from my iPhone On May 3, 2011, at 4:38 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > When I think of how many people are busting their asses, and bankbooks, to get their first boat ,lets hope the salvager sells her as a boat, rather than scrap. We live in one of the most wasteful societies in human history. > And they tell us to "Think Green." > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Greg and Christine" wrote: >> >> From another message board: "I looked at it saturday,everything is intact.The owner had to pay and give the boat up to the salvager.Beside the rudder being ripped off the boat can definetly be repaired." >> >> >> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >>> >>> Anything which wasn't made of steel would have broken up long ago, not only from the sea, but from the rough handling. You wouldn't have anything strong enough to pull on, to move her anywhere, without breaking her up. That is why I prefer a two point support for my mooring bits, the deck, and a point ten inches below decks. You could tow a boat anywhere with them. >>> She looks easily salvageable. The insurance company would sell her cheap, to anyone who is interested. >>> Those boats , however , are slower than bureaucrats . >>> >>> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: >>>> >>>> Finding people willing to take on such a project isn't easy. Plus the insurance company, if any, is likely involved. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On May 1, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Greg and Christine wrote: >>>> >>>>> Several discussion boards have photos posted of her being dragged off the beach < http://www.noreast.com/discussion/ViewTopic.cfm?topic_ID=160533&page=4 >. One of the comments I saw stated that she is going to be cut up for scrap, but the hull and deck appear intact and the masts are still standing. I would expect her to be worth more in one piece. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Those boats are only ten gauge plate. A fibreglass boat would have broken up in minutes. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Greg and Christine" wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This isn't an origami design. It is a steel pinky schooner designed by Tom Colvin. It went ashore on Fire Island, NY, on April 5. It has withstood some serious surf and is now well buried in the sand, but the masts are still standing and the hull and deck appear intact. A fiberglass boat would have been reduced to shards. The Tugster has been posting update photos on his blog: http://tugster.wordpress.com/ . >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> 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 > > > | 25811|25782|2011-05-04 11:46:11|Ben Okopnik|Re: Colvin Steel Schooner Ashore at Fire Island|On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 09:41:28PM -0400, David Frantz wrote: > > We hear a lot of that "think green" nonsense at work! Yet turn your > back and anything you might use on your job gets thrown out. > Extremely frustrating! The problem - and it's an intentionally-created one, since it's exactly the tool that the politicians use - is that a "pretty label" like "Think Green" has a lot of emotional appeal and hooks people into agreeing without understanding. Once they've already agreed with it, they'll go along with (and even defend against anyone protesting it) anything that's done, or said, under that label - and it's very hard to change that. Be very careful about trusting labels. Always consider *who* is doing the labelling, *what* they're actually doing behind it, and *why* they're hiding their actions behind that label. "Organic", "Democratic", "Clean Coal", "War on Drugs", "Freedom", "Osama bin Laden"... 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| 25812|25782|2011-05-04 13:11:11|Matt Malone|Re: Colvin Steel Schooner Ashore at Fire Island|Some have commented what a shame the boat will probably be cut up for scrap metal... Having no specific knowledge of this case, I am going to comment on the possible sequence of events: Boat ran aground Gov't may have given the owner a ticket for environmental contamination (oil perhaps) Gov't either: - gave owner an order to remove his boat & clean up debris OR - told owner they were going to remove his boat & clean up debris, and he was going to get stuck with the bill, at gov't rates (think $400 hammer) Owner balked at the costs of the ticket / removal / cleanup Owner called his insurance company Insurance company agreed to pay everything if: - owner paid the insurance company their deductible AND - the boat became the property of the insurance company (maybe because the costs exceeded its listed value, or the gov't was going to seize it anyway) Owner weighed their cost options (if they really had any choice): - pay their deductible and then buying another steel boat from some other cruiser selling their boat for less than scrap steel value OR - pay for the ticket / removal / cleanup, then pay for repairs to the boat, and a yard to put it in while repairing and the costs of re-launching OR - pay their deductible and decide that they had had enough cruising for one lifetime Once the boat becomes the property of the insurance company, the insurance company is looking to make sure that the same owner does not buy it back from some salver for a song, therefore getting the best of both worlds and possibly committing a fraud on the insurance company, so they want to see it cut up. Green be damned, insurance companies will do a lot of things automatically just to safeguard against fraud / bilking. For instance, take the case where some good old boy in some remote outport intentionally runs his boat high up on the beach just after fishing season closes -- maybe it was not such a good season. His buddy in the coastguard declares the boat a hazard or something, and contracts 3 of his other buddies to get it off the beach (being the only locals with boats capable of doing it) , and of course, that job takes 10 weeks. The bill goes to the insurance company, and they pay, the money, up with the three buddies eventually. During the extraction, the first good old boy collects business interruption coverage (can't fish, my boat is stuck on a beach), his three buddies spread the removal cost money paid by the insurance company around, making sure the buddy in the coastguard gets some too. And 10 weeks of work goes a long way to getting even more money from the gov't, in certain locales. I have seen insurance mis-used in this way to create income. The insurance companies really want to prevent that, because once people start earning an income from insurance claims, pretty soon there are more claims. Since "real" claims are rare, the "income" claims do not have to be very frequent to completely change the economics of insurance. Nothing will put them out of business quicker. Now, the reasons that the insurance company might stipulate the boat became their property are a part that I am fuzzy on, not having left a wreck on a beach. I am sure that down in the fine print of most insurance contracts, if you want them to pay out a lot of money, they keep the vehicle. Just a guess... Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25813|25813|2011-05-04 14:14:56|brentswain38|36 for sale in Mexico|There is a beautifully finished, well equipped 36 footer for sale in Mexico, for only 65K You can contact her owner at peauren@...| 25814|25782|2011-05-04 14:36:11|brentswain38|Re: Colvin Steel Schooner Ashore at Fire Island|When you talk of "Think Green " I'm reminded of Canada's "Think Green " guru , David Suzuki. The last time I saw him in the library, I said "Hey Dave, I figured out a simple way to measure your personal environmental foot print" 'What's that" he grunted. I said . "The amount of money you spend is your personal environmental foot print , period. There are some variations , but very few." He grunted once , said nothing, and his ears turned red as tomatoes. Then he got up and left. I thought "Gee , I must have hit a nerve. I guess that guy doesn't live so cheaply." I later learned that when he was looking for property on Quadra Island, he didn't ride his bike to it, not even a motor bike. He beat friends to the property, who were also interested in it, by chartering a plane. A friend saw him on a crowded plane at Xmas time. The plane was full, but the three seats next to him were empty. When she asked an attendant "Why" the attendant said " He always books the three seats next to him so no one will bother him ( quadrupling his environmental foot print for the year.) In the early 70's after Erlich's book "The Population Time Bomb" was published, warning people of the consequences of over population, Suzuki made a conscious decision to have five kids. Every environmental problem we face is mainly caused by overpopulation, something politicos consider far too taboo to mention. So where does he get the money for chartering the plane, booking four seats per flight, raising and supporting five kids , and buying the new, fuel guzzling power boat he just bought? Preaching environmentalism, for high fees! --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Some have commented what a shame the boat will probably be cut up for scrap metal... > > Having no specific knowledge of this case, I am going to comment on the possible sequence of events: > > Boat ran aground > > Gov't may have given the owner a ticket for environmental contamination (oil perhaps) > > Gov't either: > - gave owner an order to remove his boat & clean up debris OR > - told owner they were going to remove his boat & clean up debris, and he was going to get stuck with the bill, at gov't rates (think $400 hammer) > > Owner balked at the costs of the ticket / removal / cleanup > > Owner called his insurance company > > Insurance company agreed to pay everything if: > > - owner paid the insurance company their deductible AND > - the boat became the property of the insurance company (maybe because the costs exceeded its listed value, or the gov't was going to seize it anyway) > > Owner weighed their cost options (if they really had any choice): > > - pay their deductible and then buying another steel boat from some other cruiser selling their boat for less than scrap steel value OR > - pay for the ticket / removal / cleanup, then pay for repairs to the boat, and a yard to put it in while repairing and the costs of re-launching OR > - pay their deductible and decide that they had had enough cruising for one lifetime > > Once the boat becomes the property of the insurance company, the insurance company is looking to make sure that the same owner does not buy it back from some salver for a song, therefore getting the best of both worlds and possibly committing a fraud on the insurance company, so they want to see it cut up. Green be damned, insurance companies will do a lot of things automatically just to safeguard against fraud / bilking. > > For instance, take the case where some good old boy in some remote outport intentionally runs his boat high up on the beach just after fishing season closes -- maybe it was not such a good season. His buddy in the coastguard declares the boat a hazard or something, and contracts 3 of his other buddies to get it off the beach (being the only locals with boats capable of doing it) , and of course, that job takes 10 weeks. The bill goes to the insurance company, and they pay, the money, up with the three buddies eventually. During the extraction, the first good old boy collects business interruption coverage (can't fish, my boat is stuck on a beach), his three buddies spread the removal cost money paid by the insurance company around, making sure the buddy in the coastguard gets some too. And 10 weeks of work goes a long way to getting even more money from the gov't, in certain locales. I have seen insurance mis-used in this way to create income. The insurance companies really want to prevent that, because once people start earning an income from insurance claims, pretty soon there are more claims. Since "real" claims are rare, the "income" claims do not have to be very frequent to completely change the economics of insurance. Nothing will put them out of business quicker. > > Now, the reasons that the insurance company might stipulate the boat became their property are a part that I am fuzzy on, not having left a wreck on a beach. I am sure that down in the fine print of most insurance contracts, if you want them to pay out a lot of money, they keep the vehicle. > > Just a guess... > > Matt > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25815|25815|2011-05-05 12:04:15|wild_explorer|Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder?|Did anybody try Brents' idea of removing rust using electrolysis for underwater part of the hull in sea water? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/message/25662 When I used sea water as electrolyte for hydrogen generator (for test only), smooth surface stainless steel electrodes changed to rough surface. It did not happen with other electrolytes. Bad (hazard): reaction releases Chloride if I remember correctly. And it should give good reference line for painting waterline marks. Could someone put 2 rusted plates in sea water and check if DC welder will do good job for surface preparation?| 25816|25782|2011-05-05 15:00:36|Donal|Re: Colvin Steel Schooner Ashore at Fire Island|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > The last time I saw him in the library, I said "Hey Dave, I figured out a simple way to measure your personal environmental foot print" > 'What's that" he grunted. > I said . "The amount of money you spend is your personal environmental foot print , period. There are some variations , but very few." > Every environmental problem we face is mainly caused by overpopulation, something politicos consider far too taboo to mention. -- No argument. Some of this is going to self regulate as the era of cheap energy catches us up. What this might look like has been pondered by an author I've come to appreciate both for his ideas and his writing style. His name is John Michael Greer and writes the blog The Archdruid Report online. It concentrates on what the future might look like and what we can do to adapt. He also has a site called Green Wizard, collecting resources for sustainable living. To farm without oil in North America, he estimates, will require 50 million workers (and not a few horses and mules). I recommend his book The Long Descent about the possible playouts of post peak oil and a companion book I just finished called The Ecotechnic Future. The latter is quite a romp through adaptation over the long haul (perhaps one or two hundred of years). This includes technology (old and new), community, population, environment, etc., as we move from industrial to salvage and eventually, perhaps, sustainable ecotechnic future. I especially appreciated his discussion of ecological succession and how the same principles of adaptation apply to human culture and civilization. Certainly, the skills (technical and social) discussed on this group are relevant to the future Greer sees ahead, including sailing vessels again and restoring and extending canals for low tech/low energy shipping. And if you haven't been reading on the web Low Tech Magazine, you're in for some fun. http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/ And to get a handle on Brent's population issue and way, way more, spend the 3 1/2 hours and watch The Crash Course at http://www.chrismartenson.com/ It will definitely sober you up about the future and why we need simple, durable boats that give us the freedom to adapt. donal| 25817|25815|2011-05-05 19:47:50|Keith Green|Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder?|I've done it with a battery charger on a small scale basis and it works very well. You need to use something other than SS as the anode though as you are right it does release a toxic substance when electrolyzed. It's the chromium that goes, though, not any kind of chlorine or chloride. The kind of chromium compound that comes out is VERY bad for you (hexavalent chromium, I think) as it contaminates water tables very readily and is a strong cancer-causing agent. I used a piece of old cutlery one time before I knew better. Iron or steel works much better though you do have to clean it and replace it once in a while. I don't know how it would work in the ocean or with a welder. The current needs to be low and the anode works best if it's in line-of-sight and fairly close to the part being de-rusted. Though it's not supposed to have any effect on paint, I found that paint comes of fairly easily during the process. Oh! Now I remember! The chloride? It's not good. If you use salt water as the electrolyte (normally you use a Borax solution), the chloride part of the sodium chloride molecule can permeate the steel in the electrode(your hull) and cause embrittlement and eventual cracking. Something about the hydrogen (from the water) and chlorine combining and having an affinity for iron. Google electrolytic de-rusting and you'll find plenty of information. I don't want to scare you off. The method works great for anything you can get into your tank; just make sure you have a solution in the tank that isn't going to kill you, your boat, or anything else. The Borax is very good and actually makes pretty good fertilizer when it's too dirty to work well any more. I did a bunch of old rusty car parts that had been left outside for years in the rain and snow and I would say that 80% of the surfaces on those came out shiny and new-looking after treatment. The rest were all pitted but nothing major. No wire-brushing required, really. I think I used one of those fine little bronze-bristle brushes and a plastic scrub-brush for the worst of it. The rest just hosed off. Keith On 5/5/2011 9:04 AM, wild_explorer wrote: > Did anybody try Brents' idea of removing rust using electrolysis for underwater part of the hull in sea water? > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/message/25662 > > When I used sea water as electrolyte for hydrogen generator (for test only), smooth surface stainless steel electrodes changed to rough surface. It did not happen with other electrolytes. > > Bad (hazard): reaction releases Chloride if I remember correctly. > > And it should give good reference line for painting waterline marks. > > Could someone put 2 rusted plates in sea water and check if DC welder will do good job for surface preparation? > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > | 25818|25782|2011-05-05 20:43:06|brentswain38|Re: Colvin Steel Schooner Ashore at Fire Island|No animal that ever existed, has shown more adaptability and ability to survive and thrive in more varied environments, than we humans, or at least some of us. We in small sailing vessels will be in high demand soon, maybe sooner than we ever imagined. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Donal" wrote: > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > The last time I saw him in the library, I said "Hey Dave, I figured out a simple way to measure your personal environmental foot print" > > 'What's that" he grunted. > > I said . "The amount of money you spend is your personal environmental foot print , period. There are some variations , but very few." > > > Every environmental problem we face is mainly caused by overpopulation, something politicos consider far too taboo to mention. > -- > No argument. Some of this is going to self regulate as the era of cheap energy catches us up. > > What this might look like has been pondered by an author I've come to appreciate both for his ideas and his writing style. > > His name is John Michael Greer and writes the blog The Archdruid Report online. It concentrates on what the future might look like and what we can do to adapt. He also has a site called Green Wizard, collecting resources for sustainable living. To farm without oil in North America, he estimates, will require 50 million workers (and not a few horses and mules). > > I recommend his book The Long Descent about the possible playouts of post peak oil and a companion book I just finished called The Ecotechnic Future. The latter is quite a romp through adaptation over the long haul (perhaps one or two hundred of years). This includes technology (old and new), community, population, environment, etc., as we move from industrial to salvage and eventually, perhaps, sustainable ecotechnic future. > > I especially appreciated his discussion of ecological succession and how the same principles of adaptation apply to human culture and civilization. > > Certainly, the skills (technical and social) discussed on this group are relevant to the future Greer sees ahead, including sailing vessels again and restoring and extending canals for low tech/low energy shipping. > > And if you haven't been reading on the web Low Tech Magazine, you're in for some fun. > > http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/ > > And to get a handle on Brent's population issue and way, way more, spend the 3 1/2 hours and watch The Crash Course at > > http://www.chrismartenson.com/ > > It will definitely sober you up about the future and why we need simple, durable boats that give us the freedom to adapt. > > donal > | 25819|25815|2011-05-05 22:06:55|wild_explorer|Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder?|Yea-h... It makes sense only if you can de-rust hull in sea (salt) water. "Tank type de-rusting" is not practical for a boat. And, of cause, it is need to use scrap iron/steel as anode/cathode for such process. I am not sure how much chlorine gas is released from sea water during the process, but it could be managed by electrical current and how salty water is in the area (move close to the delta of a river?) Any real-life confirmation about salt solution damage / negative effect on steel during such process? Anybody knows? If it is really make steel brittle - no good. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Keith Green wrote: > > > Oh! Now I remember! The chloride? It's not good. If you use salt > water as the electrolyte (normally you use a Borax solution), the > chloride part of the sodium chloride molecule can permeate the steel in > the electrode(your hull) and cause embrittlement and eventual cracking. > Something about the hydrogen (from the water) and chlorine combining and > having an affinity for iron. > > Google electrolytic de-rusting and you'll find plenty of information. > > I don't want to scare you off. The method works great for anything > you can get into your tank; just make sure you have a solution in the > tank that isn't going to kill you, your boat, or anything else. The > Borax is very good and actually makes pretty good fertilizer when it's > too dirty to work well any more. | 25820|25815|2011-05-05 23:40:14|Keith Green|Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder?|Here's one: http://www.antique-engines.com/trailer-electrolysis.htm Links at the bottom of the page to others. Chlorine coming out of the sea water will be very corrosive to ....almost anything, including the hull. Chlorine reacts with a lot of things and, in sufficient quantity, can damage rubbers, plastics and many metals. Hydrogen released from the water will migrate into the steel no matter what solution you use and can lead to hydrogen embrittlement. I think that what happens on a large scale (or in welds made with non-hydrogen-free electrodes) is that the hydrogen migrates around in the steel and collects together in tiny pockets wherever they find space to collect. The hydrogen is trapped and under terrific pressure which causes microfractures in the steel (eventually). Something to think about in the hydrogen economy: how do you construct a tank that will hold hydrogen under the huge pressures necessary to carry enough of the stuff around to be useful and store it for long periods (gas stations) without it migrating through the walls of the vessel? Hydrogen is the smallest of all the elements and can pass right through most of the others... Keith On 5/5/2011 7:06 PM, wild_explorer wrote: > Yea-h... It makes sense only if you can de-rust hull in sea (salt) water. "Tank type de-rusting" is not practical for a boat. And, of cause, it is need to use scrap iron/steel as anode/cathode for such process. I am not sure how much chlorine gas is released from sea water during the process, but it could be managed by electrical current and how salty water is in the area (move close to the delta of a river?) > > Any real-life confirmation about salt solution damage / negative effect on steel during such process? Anybody knows? If it is really make steel brittle - no good. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Keith Green wrote: >> >> Oh! Now I remember! The chloride? It's not good. If you use salt >> water as the electrolyte (normally you use a Borax solution), the >> chloride part of the sodium chloride molecule can permeate the steel in >> the electrode(your hull) and cause embrittlement and eventual cracking. >> Something about the hydrogen (from the water) and chlorine combining and >> having an affinity for iron. >> >> Google electrolytic de-rusting and you'll find plenty of information. >> >> I don't want to scare you off. The method works great for anything >> you can get into your tank; just make sure you have a solution in the >> tank that isn't going to kill you, your boat, or anything else. The >> Borax is very good and actually makes pretty good fertilizer when it's >> too dirty to work well any more. > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > > | 25821|25815|2011-05-05 23:57:25|Aaron Williams|Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder?|Keith Water is the best known way to store hydrogen, Its just a small matter of getting it out of storage. Aaron ________________________________ From: Keith Green To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, May 5, 2011 7:40:12 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder?   Here's one: http://www.antique-engines.com/trailer-electrolysis.htm Links at the bottom of the page to others. Chlorine coming out of the sea water will be very corrosive to ....almost anything, including the hull. Chlorine reacts with a lot of things and, in sufficient quantity, can damage rubbers, plastics and many metals. Hydrogen released from the water will migrate into the steel no matter what solution you use and can lead to hydrogen embrittlement. I think that what happens on a large scale (or in welds made with non-hydrogen-free electrodes) is that the hydrogen migrates around in the steel and collects together in tiny pockets wherever they find space to collect. The hydrogen is trapped and under terrific pressure which causes microfractures in the steel (eventually). Something to think about in the hydrogen economy: how do you construct a tank that will hold hydrogen under the huge pressures necessary to carry enough of the stuff around to be useful and store it for long periods (gas stations) without it migrating through the walls of the vessel? Hydrogen is the smallest of all the elements and can pass right through most of the others... Keith On 5/5/2011 7:06 PM, wild_explorer wrote: > Yea-h... It makes sense only if you can de-rust hull in sea (salt) water. "Tank >type de-rusting" is not practical for a boat. And, of cause, it is need to use >scrap iron/steel as anode/cathode for such process. I am not sure how much >chlorine gas is released from sea water during the process, but it could be >managed by electrical current and how salty water is in the area (move close to >the delta of a river?) > > Any real-life confirmation about salt solution damage / negative effect on >steel during such process? Anybody knows? If it is really make steel brittle - >no good. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Keith Green wrote: >> >> Oh! Now I remember! The chloride? It's not good. If you use salt >> water as the electrolyte (normally you use a Borax solution), the >> chloride part of the sodium chloride molecule can permeate the steel in >> the electrode(your hull) and cause embrittlement and eventual cracking. >> Something about the hydrogen (from the water) and chlorine combining and >> having an affinity for iron. >> >> Google electrolytic de-rusting and you'll find plenty of information. >> >> I don't want to scare you off. The method works great for anything >> you can get into your tank; just make sure you have a solution in the >> tank that isn't going to kill you, your boat, or anything else. The >> Borax is very good and actually makes pretty good fertilizer when it's >> too dirty to work well any more. > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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] | 25822|25815|2011-05-06 00:02:41|Ben Okopnik|Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder?|On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:40:12PM -0700, Keith Green wrote: > > Something to think about in the hydrogen economy: how do you > construct a tank that will hold hydrogen under the huge pressures > necessary to carry enough of the stuff around to be useful and store it > for long periods (gas stations) without it migrating through the walls > of the vessel? One of my authors at the Linux Gazette, Anders Andreasen, was working at Riso National Laborary in Denmark, in the Materials Research Department, studying exactly that issue. It seems that the most effective approach is to store hydrogen *inside* a certain type of metal, odd as that sounds (some sort of aluminum compound... I don't recall, it's been a number of years since that conversation.) But, yeah, they've got that one handled. Fascinating stuff, with some quite clever folks working on 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| 25823|25815|2011-05-06 00:07:07|Ben Okopnik|Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder?|On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:57:15PM -0700, Aaron Williams wrote: > Keith > Water is the best known way to store hydrogen, Its just a small matter of > getting it out of storage. Heh. In that case, we might as well use energy in the atoms of all the matter around us (dirt-powered machinery?) A couple of grams of anything at all should be enough for the rest of our lives... The only problem is prying the little suckers apart. Now, where the heck did I leave my crowbar? 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| 25824|25815|2011-05-06 08:52:13|Keith Green|Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder? (getting off-top|Yes, I'd heard of that a couple years ago. Not much since. I hope it works. They had the same problem with acetylene in the 1800's. It was easy to make but hard to store and use as it was so unstable and explosive. They used to make it on-site by dropping chunks of carbide into tanks of (acid I think) and then trapping the gas in large vessels for use by the guys with torches (or whatever). It took a small crew to man this operation as the tank couldn't be allowed to pressurize above a certain level (quite low, as I recall) due to the risk of explosion. At that time, acetylene was widely used for lighting in street-lamps and such. You might recall carbide miner's lamps. The miner's lamp had a little tank of (acid, i think) on it and you carried a small supply of carbide pellets to drop in there when your flame got low. not too dangerous due to the fact they weren't pressuized (aside from the dangers of open flame in a coal mine, that is). Back in the early part of the 20th century, they found that acetylene had an affinity for (limestone, I think). Since that revelation, you've been able to use acetylene in portable cylinders as they are filled with (limestone, I think) and then pressurized. The acetylene will only come out of the limestone at a certain safe pressure and that's what makes it relatively safe. Check Wikipedia for the details. I learned this in trade school and from my collection of ancient Popular Mechanics magazines :) Keith On 5/5/2011 9:02 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:40:12PM -0700, Keith Green wrote: >> Something to think about in the hydrogen economy: how do you >> construct a tank that will hold hydrogen under the huge pressures >> necessary to carry enough of the stuff around to be useful and store it >> for long periods (gas stations) without it migrating through the walls >> of the vessel? > One of my authors at the Linux Gazette, Anders Andreasen, was working at > Riso National Laborary in Denmark, in the Materials Research Department, > studying exactly that issue. It seems that the most effective approach > is to store hydrogen *inside* a certain type of metal, odd as that > sounds (some sort of aluminum compound... I don't recall, it's been a > number of years since that conversation.) But, yeah, they've got that > one handled. Fascinating stuff, with some quite clever folks working on > it. > > > Ben | 25825|25815|2011-05-06 10:07:20|Ben Okopnik|Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder? (getting off-top|On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 05:52:13AM -0700, Keith Green wrote: > > Yes, I'd heard of that a couple years ago. Not much since. I hope > it works. Seems it works just fine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal-Organic_Framework#MOFs_for_hydrogen_storage Interestingly enough, that article says that a MOF - essentially, a chunk of solid metal - can store more hydrogen than an empty tank of the same capacity. The mind boggles. :) > They had the same problem with acetylene in the 1800's. It was easy > to make but hard to store and use as it was so unstable and explosive. Well, given that oil-refining facilities move millions of tons of it yearly (H is used for hydro-cracking), they've got a very good handle on both storing it and moving it without creating embrittlement issues; as I understand it, they've developed coatings that are essentially impenetrable to hydrogen. Also, it appears that the Danes have an entire community based on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolland_Hydrogen_Community Quote: "The island is producing 50% more energy from renewable energy sources than it consumes." > They used to make it on-site by dropping chunks of carbide into tanks of > (acid I think) and then trapping the gas in large vessels for use by the > guys with torches (or whatever). It took a small crew to man this > operation as the tank couldn't be allowed to pressurize above a certain > level (quite low, as I recall) due to the risk of explosion. Nah, nothing that complicated. When I was living in Russia, there was no acetylene available as such; you just dropped a chunk of carbide into a can that had a water reservoir (I seem to recall that there was a drip adjustment valve, kinda like the wick adjustment on kerosene lamps), then lit it off at the nozzle, and off you went, welding or whatever. 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| 25826|25815|2011-05-06 16:34:53|brentswain38|Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder? (getting off-top|That is why there is so little room for acetylene in a tank, and why a single bottle of acetylene will only burn one big bottle of oxygen, while a 20 lb bottle of propane will burn 6 big bottles of oxygen, and costs so much less. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Keith Green wrote: > > > Yes, I'd heard of that a couple years ago. Not much since. I hope > it works. > They had the same problem with acetylene in the 1800's. It was easy > to make but hard to store and use as it was so unstable and explosive. > They used to make it on-site by dropping chunks of carbide into tanks of > (acid I think) and then trapping the gas in large vessels for use by the > guys with torches (or whatever). It took a small crew to man this > operation as the tank couldn't be allowed to pressurize above a certain > level (quite low, as I recall) due to the risk of explosion. At that > time, acetylene was widely used for lighting in street-lamps and such. > You might recall carbide miner's lamps. The miner's lamp had a little > tank of (acid, i think) on it and you carried a small supply of carbide > pellets to drop in there when your flame got low. not too dangerous due > to the fact they weren't pressuized (aside from the dangers of open > flame in a coal mine, that is). > Back in the early part of the 20th century, they found that > acetylene had an affinity for (limestone, I think). Since that > revelation, you've been able to use acetylene in portable cylinders as > they are filled with (limestone, I think) and then pressurized. The > acetylene will only come out of the limestone at a certain safe pressure > and that's what makes it relatively safe. Check Wikipedia for the > details. I learned this in trade school and from my collection of > ancient Popular Mechanics magazines :) > > > > Keith > > On 5/5/2011 9:02 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:40:12PM -0700, Keith Green wrote: > >> Something to think about in the hydrogen economy: how do you > >> construct a tank that will hold hydrogen under the huge pressures > >> necessary to carry enough of the stuff around to be useful and store it > >> for long periods (gas stations) without it migrating through the walls > >> of the vessel? > > One of my authors at the Linux Gazette, Anders Andreasen, was working at > > Riso National Laborary in Denmark, in the Materials Research Department, > > studying exactly that issue. It seems that the most effective approach > > is to store hydrogen *inside* a certain type of metal, odd as that > > sounds (some sort of aluminum compound... I don't recall, it's been a > > number of years since that conversation.) But, yeah, they've got that > > one handled. Fascinating stuff, with some quite clever folks working on > > it. > > > > > > Ben > | 25827|25827|2011-05-07 09:26:54|SHANE ROTHWELL|Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder? (getting off-top|'Re: The hydrogen "economy"     With hydrogen, As it takes more  energy to produce the hydrogen that can be put into any kind of storage container for later use than you get out the other end, and espcially as they plan on using petrochemicals for that energy, like our phood system, our energy system and most glaringly, our financial system, it's a suckers bet...   Good thing we've got the technical aspects of sailing with a bit o' laundry up the stick & dragging a bucket (or a log...) for steering.... Wot fun!       Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder? (getting off-top Posted by: "Keith Green" ksgg@...   dart70ca Fri May 6, 2011 5:52 am (PDT) Yes, I'd heard of that a couple years ago. Not much since. I hope it works. They had the same problem with acetylene in the 1800's. It was easy to make but hard to store and use as it was so unstable and explosive. They used to make it on-site by dropping chunks of carbide into tanks of (acid I think) and then trapping the gas in large vessels for use by the guys with torches (or whatever). It took a small crew to man this operation as the tank couldn't be allowed to pressurize above a certain level (quite low, as I recall) due to the risk of explosion. At that time, acetylene was widely used for lighting in street-lamps and such. You might recall carbide miner's lamps. The miner's lamp had a little tank of (acid, i think) on it and you carried a small supply of carbide pellets to drop in there when your flame got low. not too dangerous due to the fact they weren't pressuized (aside from the dangers of open flame in a coal mine, that is). Back in the early part of the 20th century, they found that acetylene had an affinity for (limestone, I think). Since that revelation, you've been able to use acetylene in portable cylinders as they are filled with (limestone, I think) and then pressurized. The acetylene will only come out of the limestone at a certain safe pressure and that's what makes it relatively safe. Check Wikipedia for the details. I learned this in trade school and from my collection of ancient Popular Mechanics magazines :) Keith On 5/5/2011 9:02 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:40:12PM -0700, Keith Green wrote: >> Something to think about in the hydrogen economy: how do you >> construct a tank that will hold hydrogen under the huge pressures >> necessary to carry enough of the stuff around to be useful and store it >> for long periods (gas stations) without it migrating through the walls >> of the vessel? > One of my authors at the Linux Gazette, Anders Andreasen, was working at > Riso National Laborary in Denmark, in the Materials Research Department, > studying exactly that issue. It seems that the most effective approach > is to store hydrogen *inside* a certain type of metal, odd as that > sounds (some sort of aluminum compound... I don't recall, it's been a > number of years since that conversation. ) But, yeah, they've got that > one handled. Fascinating stuff, with some quite clever folks working on > it. > > > Ben Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post Messages in this | 25828|25828|2011-05-07 16:50:28|tomjlee2000|alkanes-alkenes-alkines Re;acetylene|CaC2+2H20=C2H2+Ca(OH)2 C2H2 is H-C~C-H (~ means 3 bonds) 2(C2H2)+ 5O2 = 2H2O + 4CO2 (exothermic)+6000F* Just add water!| 25829|25827|2011-05-07 18:20:43|brentswain38|Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder? (getting off-top|The energy you put in, to separate hydrogen from water equals the energy you get back when you burn it. No net gain but inevitably some net loss. Hard as hell to store hydrogen. It will seep between the molecules of any container. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, SHANE ROTHWELL wrote: > > 'Re: The hydrogen "economy" > � > � > With hydrogen, As it takes more� energy to produce the hydrogen that can be put > into any kind of storage container for later use than you get out the other end, > and espcially as they plan on using petrochemicals for that energy, like our > phood system, our energy system and most glaringly, our financial system, it's a > suckers bet... > � > Good thing we've got the technical aspects of sailing with a bit o' laundry up > the stick & dragging a bucket (or a log...) for steering.... Wot fun! > � > � > � > Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder? (getting off-top > Posted by: "Keith Green" ksgg@... � dart70ca > Fri May�6,�2011 5:52�am (PDT) > > > > Yes, I'd heard of that a couple years ago. Not much since. I hope > it works. > They had the same problem with acetylene in the 1800's. It was easy > to make but hard to store and use as it was so unstable and explosive. > They used to make it on-site by dropping chunks of carbide into tanks of > (acid I think) and then trapping the gas in large vessels for use by the > guys with torches (or whatever). It took a small crew to man this > operation as the tank couldn't be allowed to pressurize above a certain > level (quite low, as I recall) due to the risk of explosion. At that > time, acetylene was widely used for lighting in street-lamps and such. > You might recall carbide miner's lamps. The miner's lamp had a little > tank of (acid, i think) on it and you carried a small supply of carbide > pellets to drop in there when your flame got low. not too dangerous due > to the fact they weren't pressuized (aside from the dangers of open > flame in a coal mine, that is). > Back in the early part of the 20th century, they found that > acetylene had an affinity for (limestone, I think). Since that > revelation, you've been able to use acetylene in portable cylinders as > they are filled with (limestone, I think) and then pressurized. The > acetylene will only come out of the limestone at a certain safe pressure > and that's what makes it relatively safe. Check Wikipedia for the > details. I learned this in trade school and from my collection of > ancient Popular Mechanics magazines :) > > Keith > > On 5/5/2011 9:02 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:40:12PM -0700, Keith Green wrote: > >> Something to think about in the hydrogen economy: how do you > >> construct a tank that will hold hydrogen under the huge pressures > >> necessary to carry enough of the stuff around to be useful and store it > >> for long periods (gas stations) without it migrating through the walls > >> of the vessel? > > One of my authors at the Linux Gazette, Anders Andreasen, was working at > > Riso National Laborary in Denmark, in the Materials Research Department, > > studying exactly that issue. It seems that the most effective approach > > is to store hydrogen *inside* a certain type of metal, odd as that > > sounds (some sort of aluminum compound... I don't recall, it's been a > > number of years since that conversation. ) But, yeah, they've got that > > one handled. Fascinating stuff, with some quite clever folks working on > > it. > > > > > > Ben > > > Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post > Messages in this > | 25830|25827|2011-05-07 19:32:49|Mark Hamill|Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder? (getting off-top|This kind of off topic but you mentioned how explosive Acetylene was at first and I remembered reading a book that dealt with nitroglycerine when it was first made and how they used to treat it--like using it to oil stagecoach bearings from a keg of the stuff they had on the coach. At some future point the stage pulled up and all anybody heard the driver say was "Whoa" before the stage and most of the block dissappeared in a tremendous explosion. Several times during the trip they had actually thrown the keg off the stage onto the ground wilthout it blowing up. Oh and I'll be moving the boat from Campbell River to my yard in Courtenay Sat. May 14--which as one friend told me means it will never move from that spot again--funny but that does seem to happen quite a bit. Central boat movers found some boat stands for about $115 new. Will post some photos. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25831|25815|2011-05-07 20:43:56|Gary H. Lucas|Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder? (getting off-top|Okay, so at least let’s get the science right. It was just water that dripped on the carbide in miners lamps to produce acetylene. There was a ship demolition yard near here that had a carbide acetylene generator because they used vast quantities. Acetylene dissolves in acetone. An acetylene bottle is filled with a wick, like you find in a magic marker, and the wick is saturated with acetone, Filling an acetylene bottle is a slow process because you are dissolving the acetylene into the acetone. Because of the acetone you should never use an acetylene bottle lying on it’s side. Doing that causes acetone to flow out of the bottle with the acetylene. This gives a smoky flame and backfiring too. Then the bottle becomes dangerous because you have a large volume of acetylene gas that is not dissolved. As you use acetylene gas it fizzes out of solution like CO2 in a soda bottle. This is why you need to use a very large acetylene bottle with a large rosebud tip. If the bottle is too small you’ll get backfiring. The backfiring is the explosion of the acetone when it gets carried into the torch flame. Gary H. Lucas From: Keith Green Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 8:52 AM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder? (getting off-topic now) Yes, I'd heard of that a couple years ago. Not much since. I hope it works. They had the same problem with acetylene in the 1800's. It was easy to make but hard to store and use as it was so unstable and explosive. They used to make it on-site by dropping chunks of carbide into tanks of (acid I think) and then trapping the gas in large vessels for use by the guys with torches (or whatever). It took a small crew to man this operation as the tank couldn't be allowed to pressurize above a certain level (quite low, as I recall) due to the risk of explosion. At that time, acetylene was widely used for lighting in street-lamps and such. You might recall carbide miner's lamps. The miner's lamp had a little tank of (acid, i think) on it and you carried a small supply of carbide pellets to drop in there when your flame got low. not too dangerous due to the fact they weren't pressuized (aside from the dangers of open flame in a coal mine, that is). Back in the early part of the 20th century, they found that acetylene had an affinity for (limestone, I think). Since that revelation, you've been able to use acetylene in portable cylinders as they are filled with (limestone, I think) and then pressurized. The acetylene will only come out of the limestone at a certain safe pressure and that's what makes it relatively safe. Check Wikipedia for the details. I learned this in trade school and from my collection of ancient Popular Mechanics magazines :) Keith On 5/5/2011 9:02 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:40:12PM -0700, Keith Green wrote: >> Something to think about in the hydrogen economy: how do you >> construct a tank that will hold hydrogen under the huge pressures >> necessary to carry enough of the stuff around to be useful and store it >> for long periods (gas stations) without it migrating through the walls >> of the vessel? > One of my authors at the Linux Gazette, Anders Andreasen, was working at > Riso National Laborary in Denmark, in the Materials Research Department, > studying exactly that issue. It seems that the most effective approach > is to store hydrogen *inside* a certain type of metal, odd as that > sounds (some sort of aluminum compound... I don't recall, it's been a > number of years since that conversation.) But, yeah, they've got that > one handled. Fascinating stuff, with some quite clever folks working on > it. > > > Ben Gary H. Lucas Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25832|25827|2011-05-08 10:47:45|SHANE ROTHWELL|Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder? (getting off-top|To anyone who has taken the time to check this out, hydrogen is one of the ultimate suckers bets.   Yet the burocraps & politico's of all stripes are pushing it hard as they can. Mega bucks on research. Setting up filling stations from california  up the west coast, spend spend spend.   Seemingly just another piss-it-up-against-the-wall scheme.........   Until you factor in what the Bilderbergers are planning, then it all makes scence.   Not pretty.   Keep building lads!             Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder? (getting off-top Posted by: "brentswain38" brentswain38@...   brentswain38 Sat May 7, 2011 3:20 pm (PDT) The energy you put in, to separate hydrogen from water equals the energy you get back when you burn it. No net gain but inevitably some net loss. Hard as hell to store hydrogen. It will seep between the molecules of any container. --- In origamiboats@ yahoogroups. com, SHANE ROTHWELL wrote: > > 'Re: The hydrogen "economy" > � > � > With hydrogen, As it takes more� energy to produce the hydrogen that can be >put > > into any kind of storage container for later use than you get out the other >end, > > and espcially as they plan on using petrochemicals for that energy, like our > phood system, our energy system and most glaringly, our financial system, it's >a > > suckers bet... > � > Good thing we've got the technical aspects of sailing with a bit o' laundry up > the stick & dragging a bucket (or a log...) for steering.... Wot fun! > � > � > � > Re: Rust removing / paint preparation by DC welder? (getting off-top > Posted by: "Keith Green" ksgg@... � dart70ca > Fri May�6,�2011 5:52�am (PDT) > > > > Yes, I'd heard of that a couple years ago. Not much since. I hope > it works. > They had the same problem with acetylene in the 1800's. It was easy > to make but hard to store and use as it was so unstable and explosive. > They used to make it on-site by dropping chunks of carbide into tanks of > (acid I think) and then trapping the gas in large vessels for use by the > guys with torches (or whatever). It took a small crew to man this > operation as the tank couldn't be allowed to pressurize above a certain > level (quite low, as I recall) due to the risk of explosion. At that > time, acetylene was widely used for lighting in street-lamps and such. > You might recall carbide miner's lamps. The miner's lamp had a little > tank of (acid, i think) on it and you carried a small supply of carbide > pellets to drop in there when your flame got low. not too dangerous due > to the fact they weren't pressuized (aside from the dangers of open > flame in a coal mine, that is). > Back in the early part of the 20th century, they found that > acetylene had an affinity for (limestone, I think). Since that > revelation, you've been able to use acetylene in portable cylinders as > they are filled with (limestone, I think) and then pressurized. The > acetylene will only come out of the limestone at a certain safe pressure > and that's what makes it relatively safe. Check Wikipedia for the > details. I learned this in trade school and from my collection of > ancient Popular Mechanics magazines :) > > Keith | 25833|25833|2011-05-10 16:42:36|Ben Okopnik|Steel or fiberglass?|...just a point I wanted to make: while dealing with nothing but steel, and cursing the paint maintenance headaches, etc., it's possible to forget the downsides of fiberglass construction. In case there was a question in anyone's mind, yep, there are some. :) http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/bertram-yacht/12624-yachtforums-exclusive-underwater-pictures-sunk-bertram-630-a.html This boat came apart just because it slammed into a trough. Bertram is trying to claim that this happened because it hit a small plastic buoy (personally, I fail to see how this is any better...) - but there's no evidence of any point impact. Incidentally, Bertrams have a reputation for being very tough, sea-worthy "battlewagons". As I understand it, the weather was fine at the time of the sinking. They were about 20mi offshore from Myrtle Beach, SC. 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| 25834|25833|2011-05-10 17:26:56|Matt Malone|Re: Steel or fiberglass?|"Construction The Bertram 630 boasts a solid-fiberglass hull, along with composite hull sides and superstructure made with a high-density foam core. Structural bulkheads and web members are also constructed of vacuum-bagged composites. The flying bridge and decks feature molded hand-laid and vacuum-bagged fiberglass composites to provide strong, yet lightweight parts that are well-finished and easy to clean." I like the days when solid meant solid. Core = stiff, not strong or tough. Take a solid fibreglass batton and try to break it. Yes, yes, of course a solid 3/16" x 2" steel flat would be really tough too, one might say, no comparison, but there is really no comparison between solid and cored either. Matt To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 16:42:26 -0400 Subject: [origamiboats] Steel or fiberglass? ...just a point I wanted to make: while dealing with nothing but steel, and cursing the paint maintenance headaches, etc., it's possible to forget the downsides of fiberglass construction. In case there was a question in anyone's mind, yep, there are some. :) http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/bertram-yacht/12624-yachtforums-exclusive-underwater-pictures-sunk-bertram-630-a.html This boat came apart just because it slammed into a trough. Bertram is trying to claim that this happened because it hit a small plastic buoy (personally, I fail to see how this is any better...) - but there's no evidence of any point impact. Incidentally, Bertrams have a reputation for being very tough, sea-worthy "battlewagons". As I understand it, the weather was fine at the time of the sinking. They were about 20mi offshore from Myrtle Beach, SC. 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]| 25835|25833|2011-05-10 18:20:34|Ben Okopnik|Re: Steel or fiberglass?|On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 05:26:47PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > "Construction > The Bertram 630 boasts a solid-fiberglass hull, > along with composite hull sides and superstructure made with a > high-density foam core. Structural bulkheads and web members are also > constructed of vacuum-bagged composites. The flying bridge and decks > feature molded hand-laid and vacuum-bagged fiberglass composites to > provide strong, yet lightweight parts that are well-finished and easy to > clean." > > I like the days when solid meant solid. Core = stiff, not strong or tough. Yeah, it's a fundamentally flawed concept. I understand that they were trying to build lighter boats, lower PHRF ratings, blah, blah... but pretty much every cored boat over 10 or 15 years old has delamination problems. Those are expensive and difficult to repair when they're in a deck, but they're *stupidly* expensive (as in, more than the price of the boat) when they're in the topsides and of any significant size. > Take a solid fibreglass batton and try to break it. Yes, yes, of > course a solid 3/16" x 2" steel flat would be really tough too, one > might say, no comparison, but there is really no comparison between > solid and cored either. The idea behind coring is that, when it's "properly" oriented to the direction of stress, it's as strong as solid FGRP. The thing that makes it stupid is that, on a boat (or, for that matter, on most vehicles - although to a smaller degree), there *is* no "proper" orientation; given a rough seaway, the loading can apply from almost any direction. Not that the manufacturers mind; unless there's a class lawsuit, nobody's going to come after that long after the fact - and they get to sell more boats that way. This was all brought to mind because I just saw a beautifully-maintained 40+' FG sailboat - looks like it's in perfect shape, the equipment on it is top-notch, all the installations are top quality... and it's about to be scrapped for its parts - not even the slightest hope of rescuing it - because of extensive topsides delamination. Made me angry, actually. What a waste. What a betrayal, really. 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| 25836|25833|2011-05-10 21:05:53|David Frantz|Re: Steel or fiberglass?|The other thing is the whole idea that Fiberglas boats are maintenance free is a joke. Most fiberglass will degrade rapidly in sunlight so paint is just as important. Most fiberglass boats aren't that well constructed any ways, which is a huge factor in delamination and water damage to core materials. Very few builders take the time seal up bolt and other holes through the structures. I have no doubt that a strong fiberglass boat can be built. It is however a very time consuming endeavor. Extremely expensive too. Sent from my iPhone On May 10, 2011, at 6:20 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 05:26:47PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: >> >> >> "Construction >> The Bertram 630 boasts a solid-fiberglass hull, >> along with composite hull sides and superstructure made with a >> high-density foam core. Structural bulkheads and web members are also >> constructed of vacuum-bagged composites. The flying bridge and decks >> feature molded hand-laid and vacuum-bagged fiberglass composites to >> provide strong, yet lightweight parts that are well-finished and easy to >> clean." >> >> I like the days when solid meant solid. Core = stiff, not strong or tough. > > Yeah, it's a fundamentally flawed concept. I understand that they were > trying to build lighter boats, lower PHRF ratings, blah, blah... but > pretty much every cored boat over 10 or 15 years old has delamination > problems. Those are expensive and difficult to repair when they're in a > deck, but they're *stupidly* expensive (as in, more than the price of > the boat) when they're in the topsides and of any significant size. > >> Take a solid fibreglass batton and try to break it. Yes, yes, of >> course a solid 3/16" x 2" steel flat would be really tough too, one >> might say, no comparison, but there is really no comparison between >> solid and cored either. > > The idea behind coring is that, when it's "properly" oriented to the > direction of stress, it's as strong as solid FGRP. The thing that makes > it stupid is that, on a boat (or, for that matter, on most vehicles - > although to a smaller degree), there *is* no "proper" orientation; given > a rough seaway, the loading can apply from almost any direction. Not > that the manufacturers mind; unless there's a class lawsuit, nobody's > going to come after that long after the fact - and they get to sell more > boats that way. > > This was all brought to mind because I just saw a beautifully-maintained > 40+' FG sailboat - looks like it's in perfect shape, the equipment on it > is top-notch, all the installations are top quality... and it's about to > be scrapped for its parts - not even the slightest hope of rescuing it - > because of extensive topsides delamination. Made me angry, actually. > What a waste. What a betrayal, really. > > > 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 > > > | 25837|25833|2011-05-10 23:02:46|Ben Okopnik|Re: Steel or fiberglass?|On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 09:05:44PM -0400, David Frantz wrote: > The other thing is the whole idea that Fiberglas boats are maintenance > free is a joke. Most fiberglass will degrade rapidly in sunlight so > paint is just as important. True enough - although gelcoat can last for quite a long time, especially in northern climates. > Most fiberglass boats aren't that well > constructed any ways, which is a huge factor in delamination and water > damage to core materials. Very few builders take the time seal up > bolt and other holes through the structures. Absolutely right. The original entry point for the water into the boat I'm thinking of were the screw holes at the deck-to-hull joint: those areas were supposed to be solid glass for this exact reason, but the manufacturer (Catalina) extended the coring almost all the way to the cap rail / deck edge, so that's what the screws went through, and into. Result: a boat that's normally worth $85-120k, in the trash. > I have no doubt that a strong fiberglass boat can be built. It is > however a very time consuming endeavor. Extremely expensive too. Not at all. Here's a good example: http://tinyurl.com/PearsonTriton 28 feet, in great shape, $8500, and damn near bullet-proof (especially the ones built on the West Coast by Aeromarine Plastics.) A number of other FG boats from that period were quite similar, too. So is it really the cost that makes the difference? Or is it a culture of building a quality product, instead of trying to squeeze every last penny and cut every possible corner? The big builders today have gotten greedy as hell, and have learned that a good advertising campaign is worth a hundred times as many boat sales as a quality boat (because the buyers are mostly clueless yuppies rather than actual living, breathing, _knowledgeable_ sailors.) So, that's what we've got on the market. The only good answer - unless you're happy with a 50 year old boat, or can spend a half a million and up (and I'm *NOT* exaggerating) - is to build it yourself. 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| 25838|25833|2011-05-11 00:38:46|Matt Malone|Re: Steel or fiberglass?|>To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >From: ben@... >Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 23:02:34 -0400 >Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Steel or fiberglass? >> I have no doubt that a strong fiberglass boat can be built. It is >> however a very time consuming endeavor. Extremely expensive too. >Not at all. Here's a good example: >http://tinyurl.com/PearsonTriton >28 feet, in great shape, $8500, and damn near bullet-proof (especially >the ones built on the West Coast by Aeromarine Plastics.) The really solid, numerous, boats that are currently reasonably affordable were made before 1973, with few exceptions... (but not all boats made before 1973 are equal) The boat at the link is a 1961. Building one now would be prohibitively expensive. Steel is very appealing, but so are these old boats IMHO. I really liked the CSY boats too, the 44 especially. The CSY boats were one of the solid-boat exceptions, made until 1979 I think. The early ones had a solid deck as well. The price of the CSY boats however tip the balance clearly to an orgami. For the cost of a 35 year old CSY in good condition one could probably build a new orgami in Monel or marine aluminum and stuff it with solid but basic equipment. It is hard to beat the price on the 50 year old Pearson Triton and Rhodes boats built by Aeromarine. Lot of boat for the buck there. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25839|25833|2011-05-11 01:06:47|Ben Okopnik|Re: Steel or fiberglass?|On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:38:45AM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > The really solid, numerous, boats that are currently reasonably > affordable were made before 1973, with few exceptions... (but not > all boats made before 1973 are equal) The boat at the link is a 1961. > Building one now would be prohibitively expensive. Steel is very > appealing, but so are these old boats IMHO. I really liked the CSY > boats too, the 44 especially. The CSY boats were one of the > solid-boat exceptions, made until 1979 I think. The early ones had a > solid deck as well. A friend of mine lost a CSY 44 in a storm - actually, the Coast Guard made him abandon it as it was just minutes from the rocks in storm conditions. Some months later, a bunch of guys doing a transatlantic crossing spotted his boat several hundred miles off the US coast; it was half-full of water but it was clearly not holed and still floated despite missing its hatches, etc. They went aboard and retrieved his sextant and a few other things, contacted him when they got back to the States, and had a hell of a wake for the boat. The fact that it was still afloat, after smashing on those rocks, drifting out to sea, and facing all sorts of storms on its own, is pretty impressive though. My friend ended up buying another CSY with the same exact layout, although it took him a couple of years to find it. > The price of the CSY boats however tip the > balance clearly to an orgami. For the cost of a 35 year old CSY in > good condition one could probably build a new orgami in Monel or > marine aluminum and stuff it with solid but basic equipment. It is > hard to beat the price on the 50 year old Pearson Triton and Rhodes > boats built by Aeromarine. Lot of boat for the buck there. Yep. The Tritons were selling for under $10k brand new, and the companies were making good money on them - and here they are, 50 years later, no "rotted core" or delamination or any of that nonsense. Not even prone to boat blisters, as far as I know. Quality really is related to attitude far more than it is to cost. 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| 25840|25833|2011-05-11 07:34:28|Matt Malone|Re: Steel or fiberglass?|>> It is >> hard to beat the price on the 50 year old Pearson Triton and Rhodes >> boats built by Aeromarine. Lot of boat for the buck there. >Yep. The Tritons were selling for under $10k brand new, and the >companies were making good money on them - and here they are, 50 years >later, no "rotted core" or delamination or any of that nonsense. Not >even prone to boat blisters, as far as I know. Quality really is related >to attitude far more than it is to cost. > >Ben Not prone to blisters still means, after 50 years, expect some blisters. Some boats from that era were prone to blisters, and well, there area lot fewer of them. Just trying to present an accurate picture to someone reading this and thinking a 50 year old boat is their answer.If you get a 50 year old boat, expect to be doing some fibreglass repair, or pay a lot for it because someone else did the repair already. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25841|25833|2011-05-11 11:07:50|mkriley48|Re: Steel or fiberglass?|this triton has evidence of a ignorant owner and he has turned it into a non seaworthy POS. Ask Brent about the 2 6" speakers cut into the cockpit well sides and no sea berth on the starboard tack. removed rubrail, so your expensive paintjob is going to touch the pilings and seawalls. Triton is a very nice boat, lived on one for 4 years with a wife! mike ps the speakers are a pet peeve of mine,what do you think happens when it gets pooped? --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:38:45AM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > The really solid, numerous, boats that are currently reasonably > > affordable were made before 1973, with few exceptions... (but not > > all boats made before 1973 are equal) The boat at the link is a 1961. > > Building one now would be prohibitively expensive. Steel is very > > appealing, but so are these old boats IMHO. I really liked the CSY > > boats too, the 44 especially. The CSY boats were one of the > > solid-boat exceptions, made until 1979 I think. The early ones had a > > solid deck as well. > > A friend of mine lost a CSY 44 in a storm - actually, the Coast Guard > made him abandon it as it was just minutes from the rocks in storm > conditions. Some months later, a bunch of guys doing a transatlantic > crossing spotted his boat several hundred miles off the US coast; it was > half-full of water but it was clearly not holed and still floated > despite missing its hatches, etc. They went aboard and retrieved his > sextant and a few other things, contacted him when they got back to the > States, and had a hell of a wake for the boat. The fact that it was > still afloat, after smashing on those rocks, drifting out to sea, and > facing all sorts of storms on its own, is pretty impressive though. My > friend ended up buying another CSY with the same exact layout, although > it took him a couple of years to find it. > > > The price of the CSY boats however tip the > > balance clearly to an orgami. For the cost of a 35 year old CSY in > > good condition one could probably build a new orgami in Monel or > > marine aluminum and stuff it with solid but basic equipment. It is > > hard to beat the price on the 50 year old Pearson Triton and Rhodes > > boats built by Aeromarine. Lot of boat for the buck there. > > Yep. The Tritons were selling for under $10k brand new, and the > companies were making good money on them - and here they are, 50 years > later, no "rotted core" or delamination or any of that nonsense. Not > even prone to boat blisters, as far as I know. Quality really is related > to attitude far more than it is to cost. > > > 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 > | 25842|25833|2011-05-11 11:10:52|Ben Okopnik|Re: Steel or fiberglass?|On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 03:07:41PM -0000, mkriley48 wrote: > > ps the speakers are a pet peeve of mine,what do you think happens when it gets pooped? Poop-covered speakers? :) 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| 25843|25833|2011-05-11 14:38:48|brentswain38|Re: Steel or fiberglass?|A friend who has owned many fibreglas boats told me they are far more maintenance than steel, with all the bolted down deck fittings leaking from time to time. One way to keep UV out of it would be s to spray black gel coat over the lighter coloured stuff in the mold before laying her up. Black will stop the UV . A bit of aliminium powder in the gell coat would also work. Glass boat owners are afraid to sail at night here in BC. Us tin boaters sail all night long, with no worries about all the logs floating around here. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, David Frantz wrote: > > The other thing is the whole idea that Fiberglas boats are maintenance free is a joke. Most fiberglass will degrade rapidly in sunlight so paint is just as important. Most fiberglass boats aren't that well constructed any ways, which is a huge factor in delamination and water damage to core materials. Very few builders take the time seal up bolt and other holes through the structures. > > I have no doubt that a strong fiberglass boat can be built. It is however a very time consuming endeavor. Extremely expensive too. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 10, 2011, at 6:20 PM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 05:26:47PM -0400, Matt Malone wrote: > >> > >> > >> "Construction > >> The Bertram 630 boasts a solid-fiberglass hull, > >> along with composite hull sides and superstructure made with a > >> high-density foam core. Structural bulkheads and web members are also > >> constructed of vacuum-bagged composites. The flying bridge and decks > >> feature molded hand-laid and vacuum-bagged fiberglass composites to > >> provide strong, yet lightweight parts that are well-finished and easy to > >> clean." > >> > >> I like the days when solid meant solid. Core = stiff, not strong or tough. > > > > Yeah, it's a fundamentally flawed concept. I understand that they were > > trying to build lighter boats, lower PHRF ratings, blah, blah... but > > pretty much every cored boat over 10 or 15 years old has delamination > > problems. Those are expensive and difficult to repair when they're in a > > deck, but they're *stupidly* expensive (as in, more than the price of > > the boat) when they're in the topsides and of any significant size. > > > >> Take a solid fibreglass batton and try to break it. Yes, yes, of > >> course a solid 3/16" x 2" steel flat would be really tough too, one > >> might say, no comparison, but there is really no comparison between > >> solid and cored either. > > > > The idea behind coring is that, when it's "properly" oriented to the > > direction of stress, it's as strong as solid FGRP. The thing that makes > > it stupid is that, on a boat (or, for that matter, on most vehicles - > > although to a smaller degree), there *is* no "proper" orientation; given > > a rough seaway, the loading can apply from almost any direction. Not > > that the manufacturers mind; unless there's a class lawsuit, nobody's > > going to come after that long after the fact - and they get to sell more > > boats that way. > > > > This was all brought to mind because I just saw a beautifully-maintained > > 40+' FG sailboat - looks like it's in perfect shape, the equipment on it > > is top-notch, all the installations are top quality... and it's about to > > be scrapped for its parts - not even the slightest hope of rescuing it - > > because of extensive topsides delamination. Made me angry, actually. > > What a waste. What a betrayal, really. > > > > > > 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@...! Groups Links > > > > > > > | 25844|25833|2011-05-11 19:08:25|CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: Steel or fiberglass?|Everything depends. Here in Spain, with great sunlight, fbr boats require no extra maintenance, but get it because they are for rich people. Interiors and gear get upgraded frequently, for no real reason. Having said that, tomorrow I take out the Dufour 50 ft I reserved today for me and friends, for 2 days. It is a big boat, and I am very happy. We will be 9 (on some of the best cruising in the med). I will almost certainly go tomorrow night, and based on previous experience, will be the only pleasureboater out at night. I like sailing at night. Calm, beautiful, great vis, no-one around. I usually go out 10-20 miles, and then up from Bcn to about Tamariu/Cadaques/France natural reserves. Water is 800 m deep near the shore ! Vis. is 50 m when free diving, and temps are 20C or so at surface. (I dont have my own, and make do with occasional trips. Color me happy.) > A friend who has owned many fibreglas boats told me they are far more > maintenance than steel, with all the bolted down deck fittings leaking > from time to time. > One way to keep UV out of it would be s to spray black gel coat over > the lighter coloured stuff in the mold before laying her up. Black > will stop the UV . A bit of aliminium powder in the gell coat would > also work. > Glass boat owners are afraid to sail at night here in BC. Us tin > boaters sail all night long, with no worries about all the logs > floating around here. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25845|25845|2011-05-13 20:10:32|mdemers2005@hotmail.com|steel mast color?|hello, Is there a color better than another one for painting a steel mast? will white reflect too much sun light, and black too hot under the sun? any compromise? Thanks, Martin.| 25846|25815|2011-05-14 07:50:16|jhess314|Re: (getting way off-topic now)|The acetylene used in miners lamps is produced by dripping water from an upper chamber into a lower chamber filled with calcium carbide "pebbles". The more water dripped, the more acetylene gas produced. The gas was then vented out an orifice in the center of a reflecting disk, and lighted. When caving (spelunking) with a carbide lamp it was always in your best interest to not get your lamp too close to your climbing rope ;) Acetylene gas becomes very sensitive to shock explosion when pressurized higher than 29 psi. They've figured out a way to get around that problem by filling a tank with a porous material called agamassan, then filling the tank 1/2 full with acetone or dimethylformamide, then filling the remainder with pressurized acetylene. That's why a "big" tank of acetylene doesn't seem to last as long as a "small" tank of, say, propane -- and why the acetylene tank is still very heavy when empty. MAPP gas was developed as a safe alternative to acetylene gas, but never took off because it isn't as hot as acetylene gas when welding, and it's way more expensive than propane for bulk heating. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > That is why there is so little room for acetylene in a tank, and why a single bottle of acetylene will only burn one big bottle of oxygen, while a 20 lb bottle of propane will burn 6 big bottles of oxygen, and costs so much less. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Keith Green wrote: > > > > > > Yes, I'd heard of that a couple years ago. Not much since. I hope > > it works. > > They had the same problem with acetylene in the 1800's. It was easy > > to make but hard to store and use as it was so unstable and explosive. > > They used to make it on-site by dropping chunks of carbide into tanks of > > (acid I think) and then trapping the gas in large vessels for use by the > > guys with torches (or whatever). It took a small crew to man this > > operation as the tank couldn't be allowed to pressurize above a certain > > level (quite low, as I recall) due to the risk of explosion. At that > > time, acetylene was widely used for lighting in street-lamps and such. > > You might recall carbide miner's lamps. The miner's lamp had a little > > tank of (acid, i think) on it and you carried a small supply of carbide > > pellets to drop in there when your flame got low. not too dangerous due > > to the fact they weren't pressuized (aside from the dangers of open > > flame in a coal mine, that is). > > Back in the early part of the 20th century, they found that > > acetylene had an affinity for (limestone, I think). Since that > > revelation, you've been able to use acetylene in portable cylinders as > > they are filled with (limestone, I think) and then pressurized. The > > acetylene will only come out of the limestone at a certain safe pressure > > and that's what makes it relatively safe. Check Wikipedia for the > > details. I learned this in trade school and from my collection of > > ancient Popular Mechanics magazines :) > > > > | 25847|25845|2011-05-15 17:36:03|brentswain38|Re: steel mast color?|There is no difference, except a black mast makes you far less visible, an advantage if you don't want someone to see you , figure it must be a good spot, then come in and drop his anchor on top of yours. Black gives you far more privacy. I prefer to not stand out. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > hello, > > Is there a color better than another one for painting a steel mast? > will white reflect too much sun light, and black too hot under the sun? > any compromise? > > Thanks, Martin. > | 25848|25833|2011-05-15 17:40:37|brentswain38|Re: Steel or fiberglass?|In BC , we have far too many logs floating around, for FG boaters tp feel comfortable sailing at night. I doubt you see many logs floating around Spain. Friends looking for steel boats on the west coast, said they saw very few in desert Southern California, and increasingly more the further north they went, as the number of logs in the ocean increased. . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > Everything depends. > Here in Spain, with great sunlight, fbr boats require no extra > maintenance, but get it because they are for rich people. > Interiors and gear get upgraded frequently, for no real reason. > > Having said that, tomorrow I take out the Dufour 50 ft I reserved today > for me and friends, for 2 days. > It is a big boat, and I am very happy. > We will be 9 (on some of the best cruising in the med). > > I will almost certainly go tomorrow night, and based on previous > experience, will be the only pleasureboater out at night. > I like sailing at night. Calm, beautiful, great vis, no-one around. > > I usually go out 10-20 miles, and then up from Bcn to about > Tamariu/Cadaques/France natural reserves. > Water is 800 m deep near the shore ! > Vis. is 50 m when free diving, and temps are 20C or so at surface. > > (I dont have my own, and make do with occasional trips. Color me happy.) > > > A friend who has owned many fibreglas boats told me they are far more > > maintenance than steel, with all the bolted down deck fittings leaking > > from time to time. > > One way to keep UV out of it would be s to spray black gel coat over > > the lighter coloured stuff in the mold before laying her up. Black > > will stop the UV . A bit of aliminium powder in the gell coat would > > also work. > > Glass boat owners are afraid to sail at night here in BC. Us tin > > boaters sail all night long, with no worries about all the logs > > floating around here. > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25849|25849|2011-05-16 12:50:44|steve|Gale at Sea , JSD deployment|Here is a short video of Silas Crosby ,a Swain 36 twin keel , launched 1994. Enroute from Easter Island to Valdivia, Chile about 5 weeks ago. We had the opportunity to try out our kit-made Jordan Series Drogue twice on the way. Two short gales. Worked well. http://vimeo.com/23557335 A little break from construction discussion, for some sailing, on the forum.| 25850|25845|2011-05-16 14:46:51|Matt Malone|Re: steel mast color?|Interesting discussion of colour. To generally disappear against a background from 1/4 - 3 miles away, in daylight, black is way better than shiny aluminum or white. The optimal to disappear as completely as possible over a wide range of lighting conditions and backgrounds would be battleship grey -- years of trial and error testing (getting sunk) went into that. At night, close up, black is actually more distinguishable from a background believe it or not. Moitessier preferred to paint all important deck hardware black because, no matter the light conditions, he could distinguish black against the near-field background of the boat that all just looks grey, with no special form. So he would paint bitts, chocks, and cleats black to make to make them stand out against a less-defined background. If you have ever looked at a disheveled coil of rope in poor light, you may have experienced a swimming perception of it, as your mind sees it as one thing, then another, then another, with no firm perception. It seems the hard edge allows your eyes something to focus on, and the absence of light is a stronger stimulus, so your brain can put it together and form an image of that you are seeing. At night, close up or far away, an aluminium mast might be pretty grey and invisible against the horizon or the background of a shore. Far away a black mast might be slightly more conspicuous, but it is far away. Close-up, a black mast would register as something hard and sharp-edged definitely a lot closer than that background. The normal swaying of the boat would make it immediately recognizable as a mast. Generally, if people get close, you want people to recognize you, so they can steer clear, so this is a good thing. I think I have written about this once before on this forum. I was sailing east, running on a stiff breeze, toward my slip, after astronomical twilight. I was about 5km out when I heard what I thought was a power boat operating without lights. I was having problems localizing the sounds. I was still in a relatively large bay with islands, crossed in many directions by possible paths, so, when the sound went away, I assumed they had gone behind an island or got to their cottage. Maybe 10 minutes later, I hear the engine start up, in the middle of the bay, and I hear them coming at me, tracing a path toward the same anchorage. I of course had all my lights on, but from directly aft, really only my aft rail light was visible, along with a little reflected light from my forward-facing mast light on my genoa. My usual habit is to point my big flashlight at my sails, to light them up, however, that did not work immediately, and they were coming on fast, so I pointed the light straight at them. The reaction was immediate. At about 100 yards out they hauled over on the wheel, I saw mainly bilge, and they did a big circle around me about 75 yards in radius. It looked like a 26 footer, bow-rider, probably with 300 hp and perfectly capable of climbing the stern of my boat and launching off the coach roof, whether steel or fibreglass. They passed me in seconds, going at least 60 if not 80 kmph. At high speed, I could not get their ID numbers. I think that was intentional. Anyway, my silver-grey mast, and not-so-white sails were really not that visible at all against the east horizon with starlight-lit white clouds. My stern light must have been perceived as some cottager's light further away. If my mast and sails were black, I believe I would have stood out as a hole in the horizon, quickly turned in-side-out by the mind and perceived as an object. Here is a case that hinges on visibility, a power boat not seeing a sailboat from behind and hitting it from astern, and ramping over it, where the power boat driver admitted he routinely looked for unlit objects as dark silhouettes against background lighting: http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/justice.asp So I think black is a good all-round choice of colour as Brent says. If one were to paint any part of their boat battleship grey it might attract the coastguard too often to inspect the boat, day or night. "Hold on, there is a blip... I don't see anything ... Wait, it is a battleship grey steel sailboat 2 miles away. We definitely have to inspect that one." Also, drug smugglers might take more interest in your boat because of its colour scheme if it were disappear-grey. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 21:36:02 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: steel mast color? There is no difference, except a black mast makes you far less visible, an advantage if you don't want someone to see you , figure it must be a good spot, then come in and drop his anchor on top of yours. Black gives you far more privacy. I prefer to not stand out. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > hello, > > Is there a color better than another one for painting a steel mast? > will white reflect too much sun light, and black too hot under the sun? > any compromise? > > Thanks, Martin. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25851|25849|2011-05-16 14:54:33|edward|Re: Gale at Sea , JSD deployment|A great video Steve and Mer. We started making a Jordan series drogue some time, but have not finished it yet so I was very interested in yours. It sounded and looked as if the length of rode with the cones was chain. Is it? Best regards, Ted| 25852|25849|2011-05-16 18:15:40|steve|Re: Gale at Sea , JSD deployment|Ted , sorry I don't quite understand your question. Try again. Steve --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "edward" wrote: > > > A great video Steve and Mer. > > We started making a Jordan series drogue some time, but have not finished it yet so I was very interested in yours. It sounded and looked as if the length of rode with the cones was chain. Is it? > > Best regards, > > Ted > | 25853|25845|2011-05-17 04:55:27|Wally Paine|Re: steel mast color?|With respect to sails, the dark tan coloured sails common on many British traditional boats are said to be the most visible under a wide range of conditions. . ________________________________ From: Matt Malone To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011, 19:46 Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: steel mast color? Interesting discussion of colour.  To generally disappear against a background from 1/4 - 3 miles away, in daylight, black is way better than shiny aluminum or white.  The optimal to disappear as completely as possible over a wide range of lighting conditions and backgrounds would be battleship grey -- years of trial and error testing (getting sunk) went into that.  At night, close up, black is actually more distinguishable from a background believe it or not.  Moitessier preferred to paint all important deck hardware black because, no matter the light conditions, he could distinguish black against the near-field  background of the boat that all just looks grey, with no special form.  So he would paint bitts, chocks, and cleats black to make to make them stand out against a less-defined background.  If you have ever looked at a disheveled coil of rope in poor light, you may have experienced a swimming perception of it, as your mind sees it as one thing, then another, then another, with no firm perception.  It seems the hard edge allows your eyes something to focus on, and the absence of light is a stronger stimulus, so your brain can put it together and form an image of that you are seeing.  At night, close up or far away, an aluminium mast might be pretty grey and invisible against the horizon or the background of a shore.  Far away a black mast might be slightly more conspicuous, but it is far away.  Close-up, a black mast would register as something hard and sharp-edged definitely a lot closer than that background.  The normal swaying of the boat would make it immediately recognizable as a mast.  Generally, if people get close, you want people to recognize you, so they can steer clear, so this is a good thing.  I think I have written about this once before on this forum.  I was sailing east, running on a stiff breeze, toward my slip, after astronomical twilight.  I was about 5km out when I heard what I thought was a power boat operating without lights.  I was having problems localizing the sounds.  I was still in a relatively large bay with islands, crossed in many directions by possible paths, so, when the sound went away, I assumed they had gone behind an island or got to their cottage.  Maybe 10 minutes later, I hear the engine start up, in the middle of the bay, and I hear them coming at me, tracing a path toward the same anchorage.  I of course had all my lights on, but from directly aft, really only my aft rail light was visible, along with a little reflected light from my forward-facing mast light on my genoa.  My usual habit is to point my big flashlight at my sails, to light them up, however, that did not work immediately, and they were coming on fast, so I pointed the light straight at them.  The reaction was immediate.  At about 100 yards out they hauled over on the wheel, I saw mainly bilge, and they did a big circle around me about 75 yards in radius.  It looked like a 26 footer, bow-rider, probably with 300 hp and perfectly capable of climbing the stern of my boat and launching off the coach roof, whether steel or fibreglass.  They passed me in seconds, going at least 60 if not 80 kmph.  At high speed, I could not get their ID numbers.  I think that was intentional.  Anyway, my silver-grey mast, and not-so-white sails were really not that visible at all against the east horizon with starlight-lit white clouds.  My stern light must have been perceived as some cottager's light further away.  If my mast and sails were black, I believe I would have stood out as a hole in the horizon, quickly turned in-side-out by the mind and perceived as an object.  Here is a case that hinges on visibility, a power boat not seeing a sailboat from behind and hitting it from astern, and ramping over it, where the power boat driver admitted he routinely looked for unlit objects as dark silhouettes against background lighting:  http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/justice.asp So I think black is a good all-round choice of colour as Brent says.  If one were to paint any part of their boat battleship grey it might attract the coastguard too often to inspect the boat, day or night.  "Hold on, there is a blip... I don't see anything ... Wait, it is a battleship grey steel sailboat 2 miles away.  We definitely have to inspect that one."  Also, drug smugglers might take more interest in your boat because of its colour scheme if it were disappear-grey.   Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 21:36:02 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: steel mast color?                         There is no difference, except a black mast makes you far less visible, an advantage if you don't want someone to see  you , figure it must be a good spot, then come in and  drop his anchor on top of yours. Black gives you far more privacy. I prefer to not stand out. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@... wrote: > > > hello, > > Is there a color better than another one for painting a steel mast? > will white reflect too much sun light, and black too hot under the sun? > any compromise? > > Thanks, 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] | 25854|25854|2011-05-17 11:58:03|wild_explorer|Seam's boxes idea for twin model|Back to 3D modeling ;) What group think about idea of watertight seam boxes for twin model. See image here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/Origami_hulls_and_stability/Design_ideas_parts_equipment/ Even it is NOT necessary as structural element I see some pro/cons about it. Pros: - Additional structural element to the hull (bunks, seats need to be made anyway) - watertight compartment (in case of unexpected failure of the seam) - additional support for twin keels (holds keel between box and tank plate and redistribute load) - could be used for storage (not recommended for people who cannot redistribute weight properly in a boat) - acts similar to longitudinal frame Cons: - Additional weight. But it is below waterline, so ballast in the keel could be reduced (in my case) - possible hull distortion (need to be fully welded) Any others pro/cons???| 25855|25855|2011-05-17 15:51:19|j fisher|interesting boat design reading|I found this on a model boat forum, but thought it might be of interest to some of you. http://www.sponbergyachtdesign.com/T...N%20RATIOS.pdf [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25856|25849|2011-05-17 17:33:32|edward|Re: Gale at Sea , JSD deployment|Hi Steve, Is the end of your series drogue, the end with the cones attached a length of chain? In the video, it sounded to me like chain rattling out when you were deploying it. That said I am getting quite deaf and some things sound odd. Regards, Ted --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "steve" wrote: > > Ted , sorry I don't quite understand your question. Try again. > Steve > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "edward" wrote: > > > > > > A great video Steve and Mer. > > > > We started making a Jordan series drogue some time, but have not finished it yet so I was very interested in yours. It sounded and looked as if the length of rode with the cones was chain. Is it? > > > > Best regards, > > > > Ted > > > | 25857|25849|2011-05-17 19:32:36|steve|Re: Gale at Sea , JSD deployment|I have about 25 feet of 5/16" chain bundled with string into a 'ball'.Some people have it at length. I think the rattling sound was all the little cones clicking over the toerail and pulling out of the packed bag -many little elastic loops like in a parachute bag (I think -never having seen inside a packed parachute) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "edward" wrote: > > > Hi Steve, > > Is the end of your series drogue, the end with the cones attached a length of chain? In the video, it sounded to me like chain rattling out when you were deploying it. That said I am getting quite deaf and some things sound odd. > > Regards, > > Ted > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "steve" wrote: > > > > Ted , sorry I don't quite understand your question. Try again. > > Steve > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "edward" wrote: > > > > > > > > > A great video Steve and Mer. > > > > > > We started making a Jordan series drogue some time, but have not finished it yet so I was very interested in yours. It sounded and looked as if the length of rode with the cones was chain. Is it? > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Ted > > > > > > | 25858|25845|2011-05-17 20:25:50|brentswain38|Re: steel mast color?|At sea a gray sail can almost disappear against a cloudy sky. I remember leaving Mag bay and looking around the horizon and seeing nothing. A few minutes later I looked again and saw a sail, very close, almost totally blended against the gray sky. However against a backdrop of BC forest, black is almost totally invisible , light gray stands out. In a BC anchorage , one is under no obligation to open the hatch for any one, mounties included, and the coastguard flatly refuses to do law enforcement here. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Interesting discussion of colour. To generally disappear against a background from 1/4 - 3 miles away, in daylight, black is way better than shiny aluminum or white. The optimal to disappear as completely as possible over a wide range of lighting conditions and backgrounds would be battleship > grey -- years of trial and error testing (getting sunk) went into that. > > At night, close up, black is actually more distinguishable from > a background believe it or not. Moitessier preferred to paint all > important deck hardware black because, no matter the light conditions, > he could distinguish black against the near-field background of the > boat that all just looks grey, with no special form. So he would paint bitts, chocks, and cleats black to make to make them stand out against a less-defined background. If you have ever looked at a disheveled coil of rope in poor light, you may have experienced a swimming perception of it, as your mind sees it as one thing, then another, then another, with no firm perception. It seems the hard edge allows your eyes something to focus on, and the absence of light is a stronger stimulus, so > your brain can put it together and form an image of that you are seeing. At night, close up or far away, an aluminium mast might be pretty grey and invisible > against the horizon or the background of a shore. Far away a black mast might be slightly more conspicuous, but it is far away. Close-up, a black mast would register as something hard and > sharp-edged definitely a lot closer than that background. The normal swaying of the boat would make it immediately recognizable as a mast. Generally, if people get close, you want people to recognize you, so they can steer clear, so this is a good thing. > > I think I have written about this once before on this forum. I was sailing east, running on a stiff breeze, toward my slip, after astronomical twilight. I was about 5km out when I heard what I thought was a power boat operating without lights. I was having problems localizing the sounds. I was still in a relatively large bay with islands, crossed in many directions by possible paths, so, when the sound went away, I assumed they had gone behind an island or got to their cottage. Maybe 10 minutes later, I hear the engine start up, in the middle of the bay, and I hear them coming at me, tracing a path toward the same anchorage. I of course had all my lights on, but from directly aft, really only my aft rail light was visible, along with a little reflected light from my forward-facing mast light on my genoa. My usual habit is to point my big flashlight at my sails, to light them up, however, that did not work immediately, and they were coming on fast, so I pointed the light straight at them. The reaction was immediate. At about 100 yards out they hauled over on the wheel, I saw mainly bilge, and they did a big circle around me about 75 yards in radius. It looked like a 26 footer, bow-rider, probably with 300 hp and perfectly capable of climbing the stern of my boat and launching off the coach roof, whether steel or fibreglass. They passed me in seconds, going at least 60 if not 80 kmph. At high speed, I could not get their ID numbers. I think that was intentional. Anyway, my silver-grey mast, and not-so-white sails were really not that visible at all against the east horizon with starlight-lit white clouds. My stern light must have been perceived as some cottager's light further away. If my mast and sails were black, I believe I would have stood out as a hole in the horizon, quickly turned in-side-out by the mind and perceived as an object. Here is a case that hinges on visibility, a power boat not seeing a sailboat from behind and hitting it from astern, and ramping over it, where the power boat driver admitted he routinely looked for unlit objects as dark silhouettes against background lighting: http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/justice.asp > > So I think black is a good all-round choice of colour as Brent says. > > If one were to paint any part of their boat battleship grey it might attract the coastguard too often to inspect the boat, day or night. "Hold on, there is a blip... I don't see anything ... Wait, it is a battleship grey steel sailboat 2 miles away. We definitely have to inspect that one." Also, drug smugglers might take more interest in your boat because of its colour scheme if it were disappear-grey. > > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 21:36:02 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: steel mast color? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no difference, except a black mast makes you far less visible, an advantage if you don't want someone to see you , figure it must be a good spot, then come in and drop his anchor on top of yours. Black gives you far more privacy. I prefer to not stand out. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > hello, > > > > > > Is there a color better than another one for painting a steel mast? > > > will white reflect too much sun light, and black too hot under the sun? > > > any compromise? > > > > > > Thanks, Martin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25859|25849|2011-05-17 20:28:49|brentswain38|Re: Gale at Sea , JSD deployment|Huge amount of work building one. I don't know how many cones I did before building a gale rider drogue in a fraction the time. Some day I'll finish the Jordan ,but no hurry at the moment. I prefer to have an alternative, in case I lose one. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "edward" wrote: > > > A great video Steve and Mer. > > We started making a Jordan series drogue some time, but have not finished it yet so I was very interested in yours. It sounded and looked as if the length of rode with the cones was chain. Is it? > > Best regards, > > Ted > | 25860|25845|2011-05-17 20:30:10|brentswain38|Re: steel mast color?|Darker sails are far more resistant to UV than white ( which has threads which are transparent) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Wally Paine wrote: > > With respect to sails, the dark tan coloured sails common on many British traditional boats are said to be the most visible under a wide range of conditions. . > > > ________________________________ > From: Matt Malone > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011, 19:46 > Subject: RE: [origamiboats] Re: steel mast color? > > > > Interesting discussion of colour.  To generally disappear against a background from 1/4 - 3 miles away, in daylight, black is way better than shiny aluminum or white.  The optimal to disappear as completely as possible over a wide range of lighting conditions and backgrounds would be battleship > grey -- years of trial and error testing (getting sunk) went into that.  > > At night, close up, black is actually more distinguishable from > a background believe it or not.  Moitessier preferred to paint all > important deck hardware black because, no matter the light conditions, > he could distinguish black against the near-field  background of the > boat that all just looks grey, with no special form.  So he would paint bitts, chocks, and cleats black to make to make them stand out against a less-defined background.  If you have ever looked at a disheveled coil of rope in poor light, you may have experienced a swimming perception of it, as your mind sees it as one thing, then another, then another, with no firm perception.  It seems the hard edge allows your eyes something to focus on, and the absence of light is a stronger stimulus, so > your brain can put it together and form an image of that you are seeing.  At night, close up or far away, an aluminium mast might be pretty grey and invisible > against the horizon or the background of a shore.  Far away a black mast might be slightly more conspicuous, but it is far away.  Close-up, a black mast would register as something hard and > sharp-edged definitely a lot closer than that background.  The normal swaying of the boat would make it immediately recognizable as a mast.  Generally, if people get close, you want people to recognize you, so they can steer clear, so this is a good thing.  > > I think I have written about this once before on this forum.  I was sailing east, running on a stiff breeze, toward my slip, after astronomical twilight.  I was about 5km out when I heard what I thought was a power boat operating without lights.  I was having problems localizing the sounds.  I was still in a relatively large bay with islands, crossed in many directions by possible paths, so, when the sound went away, I assumed they had gone behind an island or got to their cottage.  Maybe 10 minutes later, I hear the engine start up, in the middle of the bay, and I hear them coming at me, tracing a path toward the same anchorage.  I of course had all my lights on, but from directly aft, really only my aft rail light was visible, along with a little reflected light from my forward-facing mast light on my genoa.  My usual habit is to point my big flashlight at my sails, to light them up, however, that did not work immediately, and they were coming > on fast, so I pointed the light straight at them.  The reaction was immediate.  At about 100 yards out they hauled over on the wheel, I saw mainly bilge, and they did a big circle around me about 75 yards in radius.  It looked like a 26 footer, bow-rider, probably with 300 hp and perfectly capable of climbing the stern of my boat and launching off the coach roof, whether steel or fibreglass.  They passed me in seconds, going at least 60 if not 80 kmph.  At high speed, I could not get their ID numbers.  I think that was intentional.  Anyway, my silver-grey mast, and not-so-white sails were really not that visible at all against the east horizon with starlight-lit white clouds.  My stern light must have been perceived as some cottager's light further away.  If my mast and sails were black, I believe I would have stood out as a hole in the horizon, quickly turned in-side-out by the mind and perceived as an object.  Here is a case that hinges > on visibility, a power boat not seeing a sailboat from behind and hitting it from astern, and ramping over it, where the power boat driver admitted he routinely looked for unlit objects as dark silhouettes against background lighting:  http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/justice.asp > > So I think black is a good all-round choice of colour as Brent says.  > > If one were to paint any part of their boat battleship grey it might attract the coastguard too often to inspect the boat, day or night.  "Hold on, there is a blip... I don't see anything ... Wait, it is a battleship grey steel sailboat 2 miles away.  We definitely have to inspect that one."  Also, drug smugglers might take more interest in your boat because of its colour scheme if it were disappear-grey. >   > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: brentswain38@... > Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 21:36:02 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: steel mast color? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   > > >     >       >       >       There is no difference, except a black mast makes you far less visible, an advantage if you don't want someone to see  you , figure it must be a good spot, then come in and  drop his anchor on top of yours. Black gives you far more privacy. I prefer to not stand out. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mdemers2005@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > hello, > > > > > > Is there a color better than another one for painting a steel mast? > > > will white reflect too much sun light, and black too hot under the sun? > > > any compromise? > > > > > > Thanks, 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] > | 25861|25854|2011-05-17 20:34:44|brentswain38|Re: Seam's boxes idea for twin model|The centerline tank adds huge support for the inside edges of the keels. Are the rest just tanks inside the hull? They would add a lot of strength to the outside edges of the keels. Their centres of gravity would quite be high tho. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Back to 3D modeling ;) > > What group think about idea of watertight seam boxes for twin model. See image here: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/Origami_hulls_and_stability/Design_ideas_parts_equipment/ > > Even it is NOT necessary as structural element I see some pro/cons about it. > > Pros: > - Additional structural element to the hull (bunks, seats need to be made anyway) > - watertight compartment (in case of unexpected failure of the seam) > - additional support for twin keels (holds keel between box and tank plate and redistribute load) > - could be used for storage (not recommended for people who cannot redistribute weight properly in a boat) > - acts similar to longitudinal frame > > Cons: > - Additional weight. But it is below waterline, so ballast in the keel could be reduced (in my case) > - possible hull distortion (need to be fully welded) > > Any others pro/cons??? > | 25862|25845|2011-05-17 21:38:18|Matt Malone|Re: steel mast color?|Brent Wrote: >In a BC anchorage , one is under no obligation to open the hatch for any one, mounties >included, and the coastguard flatly refuses to do law enforcement here. Could it be, because at an anchorage, one can call a boat a residence, and warrant is needed ? I do not know, I am asking. I am thinking with a warrant, they might demand what the warrant says, entry, search, whatever. I am thinking in Mexico, the federales don't need no shtinking badges. I doubt the Americans do either for a foreign boat if someone says you are a threat to national security, which someone will if they feel a need to look inside, and you do not invite them aboard. Matt [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25863|25854|2011-05-17 22:02:19|wild_explorer|Re: Seam's boxes idea for twin model|Making tanks from these boxes probably will not be a good idea. It could be used for LIGHT stuff storage only and as interior base (benches). Centerline tank/tanks should be enough for tankage (fuel, water). These boxes will add ~500 Lb to the weight of the hull (if made from steel used for a deck), but increased structural strength of the hull and keel support could be worth of it (edges of the boxes are connected directly to the hull). And it acts as an additional watertight flotation compartment if water gets inside. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > The centerline tank adds huge support for the inside edges of the keels. Are the rest just tanks inside the hull? They would add a lot of strength to the outside edges of the keels. Their centres of gravity would quite be high tho. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > Back to 3D modeling ;) > > > > What group think about idea of watertight seam boxes for twin model. See image here: > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/Origami_hulls_and_stability/Design_ideas_parts_equipment/ > > | 25864|25845|2011-05-18 07:12:34|John Riehl|Re: steel mast color?|Believe the US Coast Guard can board any boat in US waters for a safety inspection, any if they find something illegal it's admissible regardless of whether it's safety-related or not. No national security alibi needed. Lawyers/USCG folks chime in if this is not correct Sent from my iPhone On May 17, 2011, at 9:38 PM, Matt Malone wrote: > > Brent Wrote: > >In a BC anchorage , one is under no obligation to open the hatch for any > one, mounties > >included, and the coastguard flatly refuses to do law > enforcement here. > > Could it be, because at an anchorage, one can call a boat a residence, and warrant is needed ? I do not know, I am asking. > > I am thinking with a warrant, they might demand what the warrant says, entry, search, whatever. I am thinking in Mexico, the federales don't need no shtinking badges. I doubt the Americans do either for a foreign boat if someone says you are a threat to national security, which someone will if they feel a need to look inside, and you do not invite them aboard. > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25865|25845|2011-05-18 13:50:47|wild_explorer|USCG "safety inspection" (Re: steel mast color?)|Just curios, does it apply to private (recreational) boat as well? I understand "safety" excuse for inspecting commercial boat. People just work for the owner. But on your own boat (especially if there is no passengers on board) YOU ARE responsible for your own safety, not USCG. If your boat is not on a busy traffic area what "safety" is involved? I know that USA is NOT "Land of freedom" anymore for a long time, but this one looks like clear non-sense. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, John Riehl wrote: > > Believe the US Coast Guard can board any boat in US waters for a safety inspection, any if they find something illegal it's admissible regardless of whether it's safety-related or not. No national security alibi needed. Lawyers/USCG folks chime in if this is not correct > > | 25866|25845|2011-05-18 17:50:50|John Riehl|Re: USCG "safety inspection" (Re: steel mast color?)|I'm not 100% sure (I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but I think it *does* apply to recreational boats as well. It struck me as pretty intrusive when my ASA instructor mentioned it...that's why it stuck in my mind. Again, refutation welcome. John Sent from my iPhone On May 18, 2011, at 1:50 PM, "wild_explorer" wrote: > Just curios, does it apply to private (recreational) boat as well? > > I understand "safety" excuse for inspecting commercial boat. People just work for the owner. But on your own boat (especially if there is no passengers on board) YOU ARE responsible for your own safety, not USCG. If your boat is not on a busy traffic area what "safety" is involved? > > I know that USA is NOT "Land of freedom" anymore for a long time, but this one looks like clear non-sense. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, John Riehl wrote: > > > > Believe the US Coast Guard can board any boat in US waters for a safety inspection, any if they find something illegal it's admissible regardless of whether it's safety-related or not. No national security alibi needed. Lawyers/USCG folks chime in if this is not correct > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25867|25845|2011-05-19 12:39:08|Gord Schnell|Re: USCG "safety inspection" (Re: steel mast color?)|I believe the US and Canadian coast guard both view the situation as; "If you get in trouble at sea, the expectation is, that the coastguard will "bail you out". For many (perhaps most) boaters, that is true. Gord On 2011-05-18, at 10:50 AM, wild_explorer wrote: > Just curios, does it apply to private (recreational) boat as well? > > I understand "safety" excuse for inspecting commercial boat. People just work for the owner. But on your own boat (especially if there is no passengers on board) YOU ARE responsible for your own safety, not USCG. If your boat is not on a busy traffic area what "safety" is involved? > > I know that USA is NOT "Land of freedom" anymore for a long time, but this one looks like clear non-sense. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, John Riehl wrote: > > > > Believe the US Coast Guard can board any boat in US waters for a safety inspection, any if they find something illegal it's admissible regardless of whether it's safety-related or not. No national security alibi needed. Lawyers/USCG folks chime in if this is not correct > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25868|25845|2011-05-19 13:21:31|wild_explorer|USCG "safety inspection" (Re: steel mast color?)|Personally, I would not count on any help ;) Of cause they help - no questions, but you need to plan for the "worst case scenario" at sea. I did some web-search and it looks like USCG can board "any vessel, any time, any reason/no reason". Almost all links to USCG websites on this subject are broken (information removed???). One exception, they a more careful about legal/registered "live aboard's" in marinas. I have no problem if USCG say "We want to inspect you vessel (and we have enough man/gun power to enforce it)". Just do not cover it by "safety inspection" ;)) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > I believe the US and Canadian coast guard both view the situation as; "If you get in trouble at sea, the expectation is, that the coastguard will "bail you out". For many (perhaps most) boaters, that is true. > Gord | 25869|25849|2011-05-20 07:30:27|edward|Re: Gale at Sea , JSD deployment|Thanks Steve --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "steve" wrote: > > I have about 25 feet of 5/16" chain bundled with string into a 'ball'.Some people have it at length. > I think the rattling sound was all the little cones clicking over the toerail and pulling out of the packed bag -many little elastic loops like in a parachute bag (I think -never having seen inside a packed parachute) > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "edward" wrote: | 25870|25870|2011-05-21 12:47:35|Mark Hamill|Poor mans sandblaster|This is from the online magazine "Latitude 38" www.latitude38.com but it may only work in Bundaberg--ha ha--worth a trip there--great rum. MarkH Poor Man's Sandblasting Solution May 20, 2011 - Bundaberg, Australia Seems like every time we receive a note from longtime cruiser Kirk McGeorge of the USVI-based Tayana 42 Gallivanter it brings a chuckle. His latest offering was no different. "I've just learned a new trick and thought I'd share it with my fellow sailors," he wrote last week. It seems that after seven years of hard use in both the Caribbean and Pacific, Gallivanter's primary anchor chain - 200 feet of high quality, American-made BBB grade links - had lost much of its galvanized coating, and was staining her decks. Rather than buying all new chain, Kirk was determined to have his old chain regalvanized. He found three places in Bundaberg that could do the job for a reasonable price, but there was one problem: "They said I'd have to remove all paint markings and loose rust before they'd accept it, and suggested I have it sand blasted prior to delivery." But the fee for doing that was a deal-breaker, as it would make the total cost of the whole exercise higher than simply buying new chain. Luckily, Kirk's friend Sam came up with a brilliant plan. "Yesterday, we loaded nearly 400 lbs of rusty steel chain into the back of our pickup truck. We turned off the highway toward the old coastal road and drove until the pavement ended, where we got out and unloaded the two crates of chain. I tied a short piece of tuna cord to the last link of the chain, looped the string over our bumper hitch, locked the hubs and we took-off on a 10-km detour along a hard-packed beach. We dragged the chain for about a half hour at speeds reaching 40 mph while swerving and doing figure eights. We reversed the chain and drove some more and by the time we were done all traces of paint and rust were gone, and the entire length of chain was shiny metal when we arrived at the galvanizing plant. A poor man's sandblaster, but very effective!" It's a wonderful story. We only wish Kirk had thought to snap some pictures of his crazy antics. By the way, for those of you heading to Australia, Kirk notes, "You can get hot-dip galvanizing done in Brisbane, Bundaberg and Townsville, all of which are official ports of entry. But Bundy is the best deal, in my opinion." - latitude / at [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25871|25870|2011-05-21 23:33:09|Matt Malone|Re: Poor mans sandblaster|I think many of have done this by accident. I am forever dragging some chain behind my tractor or bush pickup. Even a couple hundred yards is enough to take the loose rust off. Galvanizing plants still etch the metal before galvanizing, they just do not want their solutions poisoned too quickly by a lot of excess rust. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mhamill1@... Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 09:47:45 -0700 Subject: [origamiboats] Poor mans sandblaster This is from the online magazine "Latitude 38" www.latitude38.com but it may only work in Bundaberg--ha ha--worth a trip there--great rum. MarkH Poor Man's Sandblasting Solution May 20, 2011 - Bundaberg, Australia Seems like every time we receive a note from longtime cruiser Kirk McGeorge of the USVI-based Tayana 42 Gallivanter it brings a chuckle. His latest offering was no different. "I've just learned a new trick and thought I'd share it with my fellow sailors," he wrote last week. It seems that after seven years of hard use in both the Caribbean and Pacific, Gallivanter's primary anchor chain - 200 feet of high quality, American-made BBB grade links - had lost much of its galvanized coating, and was staining her decks. Rather than buying all new chain, Kirk was determined to have his old chain regalvanized. He found three places in Bundaberg that could do the job for a reasonable price, but there was one problem: "They said I'd have to remove all paint markings and loose rust before they'd accept it, and suggested I have it sand blasted prior to delivery." But the fee for doing that was a deal-breaker, as it would make the total cost of the whole exercise higher than simply buying new chain. Luckily, Kirk's friend Sam came up with a brilliant plan. "Yesterday, we loaded nearly 400 lbs of rusty steel chain into the back of our pickup truck. We turned off the highway toward the old coastal road and drove until the pavement ended, where we got out and unloaded the two crates of chain. I tied a short piece of tuna cord to the last link of the chain, looped the string over our bumper hitch, locked the hubs and we took-off on a 10-km detour along a hard-packed beach. We dragged the chain for about a half hour at speeds reaching 40 mph while swerving and doing figure eights. We reversed the chain and drove some more and by the time we were done all traces of paint and rust were gone, and the entire length of chain was shiny metal when we arrived at the galvanizing plant. A poor man's sandblaster, but very effective!" It's a wonderful story. We only wish Kirk had thought to snap some pictures of his crazy antics. By the way, for those of you heading to Australia, Kirk notes, "You can get hot-dip galvanizing done in Brisbane, Bundaberg and Townsville, all of which are official ports of entry. But Bundy is the best deal, in my opinion." - latitude / at [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25872|25845|2011-05-22 16:58:31|brentswain38|Re: steel mast color?|In Canada, a boat is a primary residence, so they need a search warrant, or they may theoretically face garnishee orders on their pensions, bank accounts, wages , liens on their homes vehicles , etc if they lose a charter challenge in a civil law suit, for violation of your charter rights. "Obeying orders" doesn't cover them, as an excuse for any charter of rights violations. This is not the case in the US, which is why I don't go there any more. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > Brent Wrote: > >In a BC anchorage , one is under no obligation to open the hatch for any > one, mounties > >included, and the coastguard flatly refuses to do law > enforcement here. > > Could it be, because at an anchorage, one can call a boat a residence, and warrant is needed ? I do not know, I am asking. > > I am thinking with a warrant, they might demand what the warrant says, entry, search, whatever. I am thinking in Mexico, the federales don't need no shtinking badges. I doubt the Americans do either for a foreign boat if someone says you are a threat to national security, which someone will if they feel a need to look inside, and you do not invite them aboard. > > Matt > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25873|25854|2011-05-22 17:01:22|brentswain38|Re: Seam's boxes idea for twin model|ON second thought, I don't think these boxes will add much structural strength , unlike the centreline tank, which adds a huge amount. Experimenting with sheet metal, or even cardboard models will give you a good idea of what adds stiffness to what. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > Making tanks from these boxes probably will not be a good idea. It could be used for LIGHT stuff storage only and as interior base (benches). > > Centerline tank/tanks should be enough for tankage (fuel, water). > > These boxes will add ~500 Lb to the weight of the hull (if made from steel used for a deck), but increased structural strength of the hull and keel support could be worth of it (edges of the boxes are connected directly to the hull). And it acts as an additional watertight flotation compartment if water gets inside. > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > The centerline tank adds huge support for the inside edges of the keels. Are the rest just tanks inside the hull? They would add a lot of strength to the outside edges of the keels. Their centres of gravity would quite be high tho. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > > > Back to 3D modeling ;) > > > > > > What group think about idea of watertight seam boxes for twin model. See image here: > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/origamiboats/files/Origami_hulls_and_stability/Design_ideas_parts_equipment/ > > > > | 25874|25845|2011-05-22 17:05:26|brentswain38|Re: steel mast color?|A friend on a circumnavigation, was told by boarding US coastguard officers that they can search anywhere, but if you have a suitcase locked on the table , it is considered "personal effects" and can't be opened without a search warrant. That wasa few years back and may have changed. At any rate I prefer to cruise in free countries, not the US. Canada has been getting a wave of European tourists, who used to go to the Us , who feel the same. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, John Riehl wrote: > > Believe the US Coast Guard can board any boat in US waters for a safety inspection, any if they find something illegal it's admissible regardless of whether it's safety-related or not. No national security alibi needed. Lawyers/USCG folks chime in if this is not correct > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 17, 2011, at 9:38 PM, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > > Brent Wrote: > > >In a BC anchorage , one is under no obligation to open the hatch for any > > one, mounties > > >included, and the coastguard flatly refuses to do law > > enforcement here. > > > > Could it be, because at an anchorage, one can call a boat a residence, and warrant is needed ? I do not know, I am asking. > > > > I am thinking with a warrant, they might demand what the warrant says, entry, search, whatever. I am thinking in Mexico, the federales don't need no shtinking badges. I doubt the Americans do either for a foreign boat if someone says you are a threat to national security, which someone will if they feel a need to look inside, and you do not invite them aboard. > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25875|25845|2011-05-22 17:07:55|brentswain38|USCG "safety inspection" (Re: steel mast color?)|Friends who had to ask for tow from the Canadian coast Guard , asked about safety law enforcement. The coast guard said ."We don't do law enforcement , we are here to save lives , only." --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Gord Schnell wrote: > > I believe the US and Canadian coast guard both view the situation as; "If you get in trouble at sea, the expectation is, that the coastguard will "bail you out". For many (perhaps most) boaters, that is true. > Gord > > On 2011-05-18, at 10:50 AM, wild_explorer wrote: > > > Just curios, does it apply to private (recreational) boat as well? > > > > I understand "safety" excuse for inspecting commercial boat. People just work for the owner. But on your own boat (especially if there is no passengers on board) YOU ARE responsible for your own safety, not USCG. If your boat is not on a busy traffic area what "safety" is involved? > > > > I know that USA is NOT "Land of freedom" anymore for a long time, but this one looks like clear non-sense. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, John Riehl wrote: > > > > > > Believe the US Coast Guard can board any boat in US waters for a safety inspection, any if they find something illegal it's admissible regardless of whether it's safety-related or not. No national security alibi needed. Lawyers/USCG folks chime in if this is not correct > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25876|25845|2011-05-23 03:17:34|David Frantz|Re: steel mast color?|I've always liked going to Canada, from the US but things aren't all that rosy crossing the border these days in that direction. All the border guard seemed to be interested was my guns of which I had zero with me. I'm not sure if she was fishing, bored or actually believed that I don't know where my guns are. At least she was friendly about it. However I still think you are right in that things are getting worst in this country not better. Frankly I see it as a reluctance within our government to kill terrorist thus use these repressive techniques to try to make people feel better. It is like them saying: hey we are trying to prevent terrorism here; forgetting of course that terrorist have millions of ways to pull off their mis deeds. Sometimes this is literally what you hear from the governmental mouth pieces. Dave Sent from my iPad On May 22, 2011, at 5:05 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > A friend on a circumnavigation, was told by boarding US coastguard officers that they can search anywhere, but if you have a suitcase locked on the table , it is considered "personal effects" and can't be opened without a search warrant. That wasa few years back and may have changed. At any rate I prefer to cruise in free countries, not the US. Canada has been getting a wave of European tourists, who used to go to the Us , who feel the same. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, John Riehl wrote: >> >> Believe the US Coast Guard can board any boat in US waters for a safety inspection, any if they find something illegal it's admissible regardless of whether it's safety-related or not. No national security alibi needed. Lawyers/USCG folks chime in if this is not correct >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On May 17, 2011, at 9:38 PM, Matt Malone wrote: >> >>> >>> Brent Wrote: >>>> In a BC anchorage , one is under no obligation to open the hatch for any >>> one, mounties >>>> included, and the coastguard flatly refuses to do law >>> enforcement here. >>> >>> Could it be, because at an anchorage, one can call a boat a residence, and warrant is needed ? I do not know, I am asking. >>> >>> I am thinking with a warrant, they might demand what the warrant says, entry, search, whatever. I am thinking in Mexico, the federales don't need no shtinking badges. I doubt the Americans do either for a foreign boat if someone says you are a threat to national security, which someone will if they feel a need to look inside, and you do not invite them aboard. >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> >>> >>> [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 > > > | 25877|25845|2011-05-23 09:54:31|Ben Okopnik|Re: steel mast color?|On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 03:17:24AM -0400, David Frantz wrote: > > However I still think you are right in that things are getting worst > in this country not better. Frankly I see it as a reluctance within > our government to kill terrorist thus use these repressive techniques > to try to make people feel better. It's not a question of reluctance. I'm sure that if, say, a cop saw a bearded, turban-wearing figure with a Koran in one hand and a bundle of dynamite sticks with a lit fuse in the other sneaking up on New York's city hall, he'd eventually figure out which end of his gun the bang comes out of and use it. What I'd like to know is, how do you propose to figure out that a 6'4", sneaker-wearing half-Jamaican is a "terrorist" (before he starts fiddling with a wet fuse, that is)? How about some 14-year old kid whose parents and siblings were killed by a misdirected US bomb, and all he wants is revenge? How about a Muslim housewife who sends a charity donation to her mosque, not knowing that that money is going to be used to build bombs and buy weapons? How about yourself, every time you fill up at a gas station? The "kill all the terrorists and _then_ we'll be safe" scenario is a fairy tale. I'm amazed that adult human beings can believe that kind of nonsense, even for a single moment. On the other hand... why am I surprised? Most people would do anything, go to any lengths, to avoid thinking. They'll even believe politicians - as long as those politicians tell them "there, there. Don't worry your pretty little head about it; we'll do the thinking for you. Just *believe*, and everything will be fine..." Can someone tell me in what way an American (or anyone else) who says "just kill all the rag-heads, end of problem" is different from an Arab who says "just kill all the Americans, end of problem"? I fail to see any difference, personally. Maybe the fact that the former can send soldiers to do the job while the other has to do it personally... I think the first is supposed to be more righteous and moral, somehow. Here's what's real: the world is much more complicated that a fairy tale. There's no one single thing, like "kill all X" (especially when that X is some indefinable label like "terrorists"), that can solve problems that involve hundreds of millions of people, political, social, religious, and economic conflicts between them. Buying into stupid slogans only makes people into a) cannon fodder and b) a loud, emotionally-hyped, nationalistic mass of cattle to be used by politicians for their purposes. The latter is usually referred to as a "democracy" or "freedom", by the way. Oh, and the slogan-spouting cattle somehow, for some reason, believe that their desires - like safety - are going to be achieved by blindly following the politicians. This world is an amazing place. But then, what the hell do I know? I'm just a former military intelligence analyst, saddled with the curse of having been trained to think about the roots of problems rather than their outward appearance. > It is like them saying: hey we > are trying to prevent terrorism here; forgetting of course that > terrorist have millions of ways to pull off their mis deeds. It's called "security theater". It makes people feel like "security" (which is by its nature an invisible process) is happening. Some degree of it is necessary for public confidence, but when 99% of what's happening _is_ security theater - e.g., all the nonsense that goes on at airports - then the money that should have been spent on actual security has been thrown into the trash. Security at the level necessary to protect a target as large as the US is almost 100% a political process. There's no way to stop someone from dumping a truck-full of poison into a big city water supply, releasing a military-grade infectious biological agent in a crowded shopping mall (which would kill many, many more people than died on 9/11), bringing a large-scale nuke - on a sailboat, say - up the East River to about 42nd Street in New York and setting it off... an endless number of possible "movie scenario" plots. These _cannot_ be guarded against, no matter how many cops you hire or how much money you pour into "Homeland Security". The problem is that most people react to that feeling of helplessness by retreating into fairy tales that they tell themselves - instead of taking action, like voting into office people who are willing and able to take the bull by the horns and do what's necessary. But then, "what's necessary" will involve giving up the fairy tales... that's worse than terrorism. We desperately *need* our rose-colored glasses, and will not give them up. 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| 25878|25878|2011-05-23 10:57:54|Mark Hamill|Drum capacity calculator|Somebody posted a nifty auto fill calculator for drum capacity of a given rope size--have searched and googled alternates without success--can somebody please repost. Thanks, MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25879|25878|2011-05-23 11:11:21|Doug Jackson|Re: Drum capacity calculator|http://www.ingersollrandproducts.com/lifting/winches/drum.htm Doug ArgonautJr.com ________________________________ From: Mark Hamill To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, May 23, 2011 9:58:12 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Drum capacity calculator Somebody posted a nifty auto fill calculator for drum capacity of a given rope size--have searched and googled alternates without success--can somebody please repost. Thanks, MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25880|25878|2011-05-23 11:11:29|Ben Okopnik|Re: Drum capacity calculator|On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 07:58:12AM -0700, Mark Hamill wrote: > Somebody posted a nifty auto fill calculator for drum capacity of a given rope size--have searched and googled alternates without success--can somebody please repost. Thanks, MarkH Ingersoll-Rand has a pretty good one: http://www.ingersollrandproducts.com/lifting/winches/drum.htm 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| 25881|25881|2011-05-23 15:05:19|batool|Hangover 3 'would be the last'|http://bit.ly/jePbtV Todd Phillips has always envisioned 'The Hangover' movies as a trilogy. The director is getting ready for the release of the second film in the series which follows a group of friends who head to Thailand for a wedding which gets out of hand and although Todd hasn't spoken to the cast about a new movie, he admitted he would like to wrap it up with a third film. However, Todd warned a third film would be very different to the first two which star Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis and Justin Bartha. He said: 'If we were to do a third one, and quite honestly we really haven't talked about it. If we were to do a third one, if the audience ... if the desire was there.I think we have a clear idea where that would head and it's certainly not in the same template you've seen these movies and obviously we always envisioned it as a trilogy as you can imagine, the third would very much a finale and an ending. 'The most I could say about it and I haven't discussed it with these actors is that it is not following that template but very much a new idea. As far as where it takes place. I'm very open like the Olympic committee to being pitched and presented cities. Flown around with wine and women and bribed and then I will make my decision.' However, the actors may not be too happy with his plans as Bradley has previously revealed he was delighted they followed a similar structure on the second movie. He said: 'The sequel can't be, 'Let's make a movie that has a completely different story but it won't matter because people love seeing those guys together.' 'I don't believe that when you look at sequels that don't work in comedy, it's when they abandon the formula. I was very happy that there was a structure a ticking clock, a missing night.' Read More [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25882|25854|2011-05-23 21:32:40|wild_explorer|Re: Seam's boxes idea for twin model|I just trying to figure out if it is worth of additional weigh and trades off... Those "boxes" could distort hull if fully welded to a hull's shell. Doing interior arrangement (bases), I see that hull's shell should have enough reinforcement from interior. Especially if using transverse wood planks. Some extra support for tween keels could be gained even with a regular interior arrangement (which includes center water/fuel tank). "Point mounted" watertight boxes may be not worth of effort. Still thinking about pro and cons ... --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > ON second thought, I don't think these boxes will add much structural strength , unlike the centreline tank, which adds a huge amount. Experimenting with sheet metal, or even cardboard models will give you a good idea of what adds stiffness to what. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "wild_explorer" wrote: > > > > Making tanks from these boxes probably will not be a good idea. It could be used for LIGHT stuff storage only and as interior base (benches). > > > > Centerline tank/tanks should be enough for tankage (fuel, water). > > > > These boxes will add ~500 Lb to the weight of the hull (if made from steel used for a deck), but increased structural strength of the hull and keel support could be worth of it (edges of the boxes are connected directly to the hull). And it acts as an additional watertight flotation compartment if water gets inside. > > | 25883|25845|2011-05-24 09:07:44|Donal|Re: steel mast color?|Ben, You may enjoy a newsletter called Crypto-Gram written by a fellow who specializes in computer security and well as a host of other security issues and has a pretty acerbic wit with a global viewpoint. http://www.schneier.com/ I've been reading his newsletter for several years. Always illuminating. Once he discussed why confiscating over sized bottles of shampoo helped the terrorists. You see, if there is no consequence to having one in your bag (they just confiscate the bottle and allow you to pass), then it is just a numbers game. Try until you get your bomb, looking like shampoo, through the gates. It buries the system in false positives which obscure a true positive event. Better to travel by slow boat. donal --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > It's called "security theater". It makes people feel like "security" > (which is by its nature an invisible process) is happening. Some degree > of it is necessary for public confidence, but when 99% of what's > happening _is_ security theater - e.g., all the nonsense that goes on at > airports - then the money that should have been spent on actual security > has been thrown into the trash. | 25884|25845|2011-05-24 09:59:17|j fisher|Re: steel mast color?|Had a first hand demonstration of that this weekend. My wife forgot a pairing knife in her purse on our plane flight. We found it at the destination, TSA did not notice it. Not to say that they wouldnt have found it on the return flight, but things get through. On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Donal wrote: > > > Ben, > > You may enjoy a newsletter called Crypto-Gram written by a fellow who > specializes in computer security and well as a host of other security issues > and has a pretty acerbic wit with a global viewpoint. > > http://www.schneier.com/ > > I've been reading his newsletter for several years. Always illuminating. > > Once he discussed why confiscating over sized bottles of shampoo helped the > terrorists. You see, if there is no consequence to having one in your bag > (they just confiscate the bottle and allow you to pass), then it is just a > numbers game. Try until you get your bomb, looking like shampoo, through the > gates. It buries the system in false positives which obscure a true positive > event. > > Better to travel by slow boat. > > donal > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > It's called "security theater". It makes people feel like "security" > > (which is by its nature an invisible process) is happening. Some degree > > of it is necessary for public confidence, but when 99% of what's > > happening _is_ security theater - e.g., all the nonsense that goes on at > > airports - then the money that should have been spent on actual security > > has been thrown into the trash. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25885|25845|2011-05-24 10:05:06|Ben Okopnik|Re: steel mast color?|On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 01:07:41PM -0000, Donal wrote: > Ben, > > You may enjoy a newsletter called Crypto-Gram written by a fellow who > specializes in computer security and well as a host of other security > issues and has a pretty acerbic wit with a global viewpoint. > > http://www.schneier.com/ Heh. I've been reading Bruce for many, many years now, and his "Beyond Fear" is perhaps the most brilliant guide ever to understanding the distinction between risk and risk perception. > I've been reading his newsletter for several years. Always illuminating. He's one of the (very) few people in the security field who has earned my respect and admiration; he is a very clear thinker and is excellent at precisely describing the illusions and misperceptions that people have with regard to security. In fact, I visited his company, Counterpane, at one point and was offered a shot at a job there. If I wasn't as committed to working for myself as I am, that's an offer that would have seriously tempted me; working with Bruce would be a privilege. > Once he discussed why confiscating over sized bottles of shampoo > helped the terrorists. You see, if there is no consequence to having > one in your bag (they just confiscate the bottle and allow you to > pass), then it is just a numbers game. Try until you get your bomb, > looking like shampoo, through the gates. It buries the system in > false positives which obscure a true positive event. PETN, shaped into a flat pancake and placed under your shirt, is indistinguishable from flesh (about the same density.) It's also extremely difficult to detect with standard explosive scanners. Basically requires a pat-down to find. http://gizmodo.com/5712481/fool-the-tsas-scanners-with-pancakes Reactive "security" (i.e., imagine a situation/movie plot and then protect against it) is *stupid*. > Better to travel by slow boat. The terrorists have tied hungry rats to the seacocks, and have smeared Velveeta cheese on the hoses. ;) 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| 25886|25845|2011-05-24 10:27:02|wmunger@programmer.net|Re: steel mast color?|>> Better to travel by slow boat. >The terrorists have tied hungry rats to the seacocks, and have smeared >Velveeta cheese on the hoses. ;) flexible metal hoses GREAT! now I will have to go buy these. Thanks a lot Ben! :-) William [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25887|25845|2011-05-24 10:28:10|Ben Okopnik|Re: steel mast color?|On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 07:59:08AM -0600, j fisher wrote: > Had a first hand demonstration of that this weekend. My wife forgot a > pairing knife in her purse on our plane flight. We found it at the > destination, TSA did not notice it. Not to say that they wouldnt have found > it on the return flight, but things get through. I fly a lot - have to deliver classes in a variety of places. Just for my own curiosity, I've left a half-empty 6-oz. tube of toothpaste (the standard roll-up shape with a big cap) in my suitcase, just to see how long it would take the TSA to pick it up (actually, the way it started was that I'd forgotten that I had it there.) Almost 3 years so far, with a total of maybe 45 flights during that time, and _still_ not found. Oh yeah - that includes being pulled out of the line twice and wanded plus a hand search. 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| 25888|25845|2011-05-24 10:37:43|Ben Okopnik|Re: steel mast color?|On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:26:35AM -0400, wmunger@... wrote: > > >> Better to travel by slow boat. > > >The terrorists have tied hungry rats to the seacocks, and have smeared > >Velveeta cheese on the hoses. ;) > > flexible metal hoses Rats with carbide-tipped teeth, of course. :) > GREAT! now I will have to go buy these. Thanks a lot Ben! :-) [grin] My pleasure. 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| 25889|25845|2011-05-24 11:52:49|mkriley48|Re: steel now ben's rant|very well thought out and 100% correct IMHO! mike| 25890|25878|2011-05-24 17:17:35|haidan|Re: Drum capacity calculator|You can also just calculate the volume of the drum/rope it's pretty close. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 07:58:12AM -0700, Mark Hamill wrote: > > Somebody posted a nifty auto fill calculator for drum capacity of a given rope size--have searched and googled alternates without success--can somebody please repost. Thanks, MarkH > > Ingersoll-Rand has a pretty good one: > > http://www.ingersollrandproducts.com/lifting/winches/drum.htm > > > 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 > | 25891|25891|2011-05-25 06:02:53|Kim|Mooring Bitts/Sampson Posts, and JSD's.|Hi Brent ... On your plans for the 26-footer you specify that the 3 mooring bits (one in the bow and two at the transom) be made from 3" SCH 40 SS pipe (this has a 5.49mm wall thickness). But someone gave me some 3" SCH 10 SS pipe (this has a much thinner 3.05mm wall thickness), and I was going to use that 3" SCH 10 for the 3 mooring bits, as it looked strong enough. But after seeing Steve's JSD video (Message #25849), I was reminded of the loads that these mooring bits are sometimes asked to carry! So my question is: Would the 3" SCH 10 SS pipe (that I already have) be of adequate strength to use for the mooring bitts on the 26-footer? Also: for the 12" x 12" doubler that goes around the mooring bits, would 5mm thick SS be OK? Thanks Brent! Steve: The JSD video you posted was really excellent! I was wondering what procedure you used to retrieve it? When deployed, did it bring Silas Crosby to an (almost) complete stop? Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________| 25892|25845|2011-05-25 12:16:37|Donal|Re: steel mast color?|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > I fly a lot Ben, I used to fly lots as a corporate/industrial photographer. I'd check clothes and carry on a 68-pound roll aboard plus Tenba expandable brief case. Had to. Couldn;'t arrive at a destination without the gear. I never, ever got through a check point without extensive searches, even been searched at the first check and then again at the gate. Batteries, strobes, stands, tripod (carbon Ffiber) remote triggers, etc. It was a fine process just to get everything needed in the bags, only to have to repack. I got pretty good at it, changing my shooting style from needing 300 lbs of gear down to about 100. And I had to develop patience and a strict policy of getting to the airport early. Way early. My daughter is a flight attendant for United, so I can fly free. But haven't been on a plane in three years. One big draw of traveling by sailboat is NOT having to fly. The crew of Sunstone (www.sunstonesailing.com) wrote an article in Cruising World a while back called "Boots, Bikes and Boats." There it is. donal| 25893|25891|2011-05-25 15:43:29|brentswain38|Re: Mooring Bitts/Sampson Posts, and JSD's.|They would be OK , but it wouldn't hurt to force a 3 inch OD mild steel pipe inside for re-enforcement. Mine are done that way.You cn cut a slice out to size it down if needed. The loads on the 26 are far less than they would be on a 36. 5mm is fine for doublers. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Brent ... > > On your plans for the 26-footer you specify that the 3 mooring bits (one in the bow and two at the transom) be made from 3" SCH 40 SS pipe (this has a 5.49mm wall thickness). > > But someone gave me some 3" SCH 10 SS pipe (this has a much thinner 3.05mm wall thickness), and I was going to use that 3" SCH 10 for the 3 mooring bits, as it looked strong enough. > > But after seeing Steve's JSD video (Message #25849), I was reminded of the loads that these mooring bits are sometimes asked to carry! > > So my question is: Would the 3" SCH 10 SS pipe (that I already have) be of adequate strength to use for the mooring bitts on the 26-footer? Also: for the 12" x 12" doubler that goes around the mooring bits, would 5mm thick SS be OK? > > Thanks Brent! > > Steve: The JSD video you posted was really excellent! I was wondering what procedure you used to retrieve it? When deployed, did it bring Silas Crosby to an (almost) complete stop? > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > | 25894|25891|2011-05-25 16:29:54|Matt Malone|Re: Mooring Bitts/Sampson Posts, and JSD's.|Mild steel pipe on the inside is a good idea -- it makes it stronger in general but also helps the pipe hold its shape. Filling the pipe, like a bollard is steel pipe filled with concrete, often seen around fire hydrants and such, makes a pipe a lot stronger too. But filling it or sleeving the inside with steel is better. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: brentswain38@... Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 19:43:29 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Mooring Bitts/Sampson Posts, and JSD's. They would be OK , but it wouldn't hurt to force a 3 inch OD mild steel pipe inside for re-enforcement. Mine are done that way.You cn cut a slice out to size it down if needed. The loads on the 26 are far less than they would be on a 36. 5mm is fine for doublers. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Brent ... > > On your plans for the 26-footer you specify that the 3 mooring bits (one in the bow and two at the transom) be made from 3" SCH 40 SS pipe (this has a 5.49mm wall thickness). > > But someone gave me some 3" SCH 10 SS pipe (this has a much thinner 3.05mm wall thickness), and I was going to use that 3" SCH 10 for the 3 mooring bits, as it looked strong enough. > > But after seeing Steve's JSD video (Message #25849), I was reminded of the loads that these mooring bits are sometimes asked to carry! > > So my question is: Would the 3" SCH 10 SS pipe (that I already have) be of adequate strength to use for the mooring bitts on the 26-footer? Also: for the 12" x 12" doubler that goes around the mooring bits, would 5mm thick SS be OK? > > Thanks Brent! > > Steve: The JSD video you posted was really excellent! I was wondering what procedure you used to retrieve it? When deployed, did it bring Silas Crosby to an (almost) complete stop? > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > __________________________________________________________ > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25895|25845|2011-05-25 22:54:38|Gary H. Lucas|Re: steel mast color?|Three years ago I had to get TSA clearance to work on the runway at a major airport. Spent most of the winter there working in a tent freezing my ass off. Some days I’d walk out and stand behind one of the big jets and warm up in the blast from the engines. Security checks? Ha Ha Ha, I could drive a truck through some of them! What a freaking joke. Gary H. Lucas From: Donal Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:16 PM To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Subject: [origamiboats] Re: steel mast color? --- In mailto:origamiboats%40yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > I fly a lot Ben, I used to fly lots as a corporate/industrial photographer. I'd check clothes and carry on a 68-pound roll aboard plus Tenba expandable brief case. Had to. Couldn;'t arrive at a destination without the gear. I never, ever got through a check point without extensive searches, even been searched at the first check and then again at the gate. Batteries, strobes, stands, tripod (carbon Ffiber) remote triggers, etc. It was a fine process just to get everything needed in the bags, only to have to repack. I got pretty good at it, changing my shooting style from needing 300 lbs of gear down to about 100. And I had to develop patience and a strict policy of getting to the airport early. Way early. My daughter is a flight attendant for United, so I can fly free. But haven't been on a plane in three years. One big draw of traveling by sailboat is NOT having to fly. The crew of Sunstone (www.sunstonesailing.com) wrote an article in Cruising World a while back called "Boots, Bikes and Boats." There it is. donal Gary H. Lucas Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25896|25845|2011-05-26 21:43:31|brentswain38|Re: steel mast color?|I remember a TV documentary about a guy who went around checking airport security. He was easily able to smuggle handguns aboard ,and was never checked. The one boat of my design which was harassed daily by the US coast guard in the Caribean was painted bright red. No , they didn't expect a dope smuggler to be in a bright red hull. It just made reaching their harassment quota easy. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Gary H. Lucas" wrote: > > Three years ago I had to get TSA clearance to work on the runway at a major airport. Spent most of the winter there working in a tent freezing my ass off. Some days I’d walk out and stand behind one of the big jets and warm up in the blast from the engines. Security checks? Ha Ha Ha, I could drive a truck through some of them! What a freaking joke. > > Gary H. Lucas > > From: Donal > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:16 PM > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: steel mast color? > > > --- In mailto:origamibuard was painte3d bright red. oats%40yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > I fly a lot > > Ben, > I used to fly lots as a corporate/industrial photographer. I'd check clothes and carry on a 68-pound roll aboard plus Tenba expandable brief case. Had to. Couldn;'t arrive at a destination without the gear. I never, ever got through a check point without extensive searches, even been searched at the first check and then again at the gate. Batteries, strobes, stands, tripod (carbon Ffiber) remote triggers, etc. It was a fine process just to get everything needed in the bags, only to have to repack. I got pretty good at it, changing my shooting style from needing 300 lbs of gear down to about 100. And I had to develop patience and a strict policy of getting to the airport early. Way early. My daughter is a flight attendant for United, so I can fly free. But haven't been on a plane in three years. One big draw of traveling by sailboat is NOT having to fly. The crew of Sunstone (www.sunstonesailing.com) wrote an article in Cruising World a while back called "Boots, Bikes and Boats." There it is. > > donal > > > > > Gary H. Lucas > > Have you read my blog? http://a-little-business.blogspot.com/ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25897|25891|2011-05-27 00:39:50|Kim|Re: Mooring Bitts/Sampson Posts, and JSD's.|Many thanks for your replies, Brent and Matt! Cheers ... Kim. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > They would be OK , but it wouldn't hurt to force a 3 inch OD mild steel pipe inside for re-enforcement. Mine are done that way.You cn cut a slice out to size it down if needed. The loads on the 26 are far less than they would be on a 36. 5mm is fine for doublers. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > Mild steel pipe on the inside is a good idea -- it makes it stronger in general but also helps the pipe hold its shape. Filling the pipe, like a bollard is steel pipe filled with concrete, often seen around fire hydrants and such, makes a pipe a lot stronger too. But filling it or sleeving the inside with steel is better. > > Matt > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Brent ... > > > > On your plans for the 26-footer you specify that the 3 mooring bits (one in the bow and two at the transom) be made from 3" SCH 40 SS pipe (this has a 5.49mm wall thickness). > > > > But someone gave me some 3" SCH 10 SS pipe (this has a much thinner 3.05mm wall thickness), and I was going to use that 3" SCH 10 for the 3 mooring bits, as it looked strong enough. > > > > But after seeing Steve's JSD video (Message #25849), I was reminded of the loads that these mooring bits are sometimes asked to carry! > > > > So my question is: Would the 3" SCH 10 SS pipe (that I already have) be of adequate strength to use for the mooring bitts on the 26-footer? Also: for the 12" x 12" doubler that goes around the mooring bits, would 5mm thick SS be OK? > > > > Thanks Brent! > > > > Steve: The JSD video you posted was really excellent! I was wondering what procedure you used to retrieve it? When deployed, did it bring Silas Crosby to an (almost) complete stop? > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ | 25898|25891|2011-05-30 09:06:00|steve|Re: Mooring Bitts/Sampson Posts, and JSD's.|Kim , regarding the JSD use : we used a 35' line tied to the outboard end of the bridle to initially get the drogue line to a winch. Then just pulled it in hand over hand using the winch as a 'snubber' only. This in 15 - 20 k wind. The boat was slowed from 6.5 k under bare pole to 2.0 to 2.5 k under drogue alone. see Roger Taylor's ('Simple Sailor') website for experience with his little boat MingMing under JSD in gale conditions. Steve --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Brent ... > > On your plans for the 26-footer you specify that the 3 mooring bits (one in the bow and two at the transom) be made from 3" SCH 40 SS pipe (this has a 5.49mm wall thickness). > > But someone gave me some 3" SCH 10 SS pipe (this has a much thinner 3.05mm wall thickness), and I was going to use that 3" SCH 10 for the 3 mooring bits, as it looked strong enough. > > But after seeing Steve's JSD video (Message #25849), I was reminded of the loads that these mooring bits are sometimes asked to carry! > > So my question is: Would the 3" SCH 10 SS pipe (that I already have) be of adequate strength to use for the mooring bitts on the 26-footer? Also: for the 12" x 12" doubler that goes around the mooring bits, would 5mm thick SS be OK? > > Thanks Brent! > > Steve: The JSD video you posted was really excellent! I was wondering what procedure you used to retrieve it? When deployed, did it bring Silas Crosby to an (almost) complete stop? > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > | 25899|25716|2011-05-30 11:42:27|ed_lithgow|Re: rust|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > Just a tip on something I use to clean up rust. I have taken a short piece of cable and untwisted one end. Then I put the other end in my high speed drill and I find I can get into corners and even around corners with it. If you run the drill in the same direction as the twist of the cable it won't all come undone. Works good in tight spots and it is cheap. > James  > > --- On Sun, 4/10/11, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > From: Ben Okopnik > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: rust > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Received: Sunday, April 10, 2011, 9:35 AM > > >   > > > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 09:20:34AM -0400, martin demers wrote: > > > > Ben, > > > > do you think Corroseal is better than zinc primer? > > If I was going over new steel - e.g., a weld - I'd go with the zinc > primer. In fact, that's the dividing point: if I can get a grinder to > the area that I'm derusting, then I'll get it down to bare metal and use > zinc; if I can't grind it, then I chip it as best I can and then > Corroseal it. If I was a perfectionist, I'd probably put a coat of zinc > over the Corroseal before putting the epoxy down for a little extra > protection. > > 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] > Me too. Works well. Smaller cable diameters are a bit too flexible and whip around so I insert them into a tube and run them the other way so they unwrap and tighten in the tube.| 25900|25716|2011-05-30 12:04:38|Matt Malone|Re: rust|Very, cool, and cheap, and, just pull more cable out of the chuck when it wears. Excellent James. It so happens I have a really complex rusty part I just took off and brought back to the shop and I was wondering how I would get all the rust off without chemicals. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ed_lithgow@... Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 15:42:26 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rust --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > Just a tip on something I use to clean up rust. I have taken a short piece of cable and untwisted one end. Then I put the other end in my high speed drill and I find I can get into corners and even around corners with it. If you run the drill in the same direction as the twist of the cable it won't all come undone. Works good in tight spots and it is cheap. > James > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25901|25716|2011-05-30 14:08:43|brentswain38|Re: rust|Karl, my neighbour, gave me a dremmel tool . It works great in such spots, and has a lot of other uses. The chuck was kind of flimsy, and needed modifications. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Very, cool, and cheap, and, just pull more cable out of the chuck when it wears. > > Excellent James. It so happens I have a really complex rusty part I just took off and brought back to the shop and I was wondering how I would get all the rust off without chemicals. > > Matt > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: ed_lithgow@... > Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 15:42:26 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: rust > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, James Pronk wrote: > > > > > > Just a tip on something I use to clean up rust. I have taken a short piece of cable and untwisted one end. Then I put the other end in my high speed drill and I find I can get into corners and even around corners with it. If you run the drill in the same direction as the twist of the cable it won't all come undone. Works good in tight spots and it is cheap. > > > James� > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25902|25716|2011-05-30 14:14:55|Mark Hamill|Re: rust|The online site for Corroseal says that it is not recommended for hulls below the waterline--any experience with that?? www.corroseal.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25903|25903|2011-05-30 18:03:54|wild_explorer|Wishbone cat rig?|Yesterday I was watching one sailboat (about 40 ft) going upwind. It had Cat rig with "wishbone" boom. It outran all sailboats around (even ones used engines) and was handled just by one man. Man only "ducked" to stay clear from boom/sail when boat changed direction. I did not see him even touching any lines. He just kept going... And impressively fast. Does anybody have experience with such rig? Pro/Cons???| 25904|25903|2011-05-31 05:23:52|jason ball|Re: Wishbone cat rig?|garry hoyt knows a few things about cat rigs...google him? --- On Mon, 30/5/11, wild_explorer wrote: From: wild_explorer Subject: [origamiboats] Wishbone cat rig? To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 30 May, 2011, 23:03   Yesterday I was watching one sailboat (about 40 ft) going upwind. It had Cat rig with "wishbone" boom. It outran all sailboats around (even ones used engines) and was handled just by one man. Man only "ducked" to stay clear from boom/sail when boat changed direction. I did not see him even touching any lines. He just kept going... And impressively fast. Does anybody have experience with such rig? Pro/Cons??? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25905|25903|2011-05-31 05:51:14|Giuseppe Bergman|Re: Wishbone cat rig?|"Yves-Marie Tanton", "Eric Sponberg" and "Gary Hoyt" are the ones to google, as far as You're interested in the technical side of wireless sailing under one or more masts. Their products would be found googling "Freedom cat ketch" (Hoyt/Sponberg), "Tanton 43" resp. "Tanton cat ketch" (Y-M-T), "project amazon", "kriter lady II" or "Tanton Yachts", but it pretty much are the same group of hits all those will produce. Some Other are on the market like Hinterhoellers Nonsuch (single wireless masted wishbone), Wyliecat, (single or double wireless masted), also James Wharram experimented with wireless wishbone sails, as well as some Herreshoff classics and probably a handful exotic dreams boatbuilders let come true as one-offs. (Kriter Lady two, a wireless wishboned carbonspar three-master from the eighties, lately for sale on craigs list in california as "joshuah", and Sponbergs ingeniously constructed but for owners actual lack of resources poorly built and never really finished "project amazon" fall into the latter category.) "wireless wishbone cat rigged" definitely is the simplest and most suitable way to go if shorthanded cruising or singlehanding is intended. As a boatbuilder and "conventional" racer sailor for almost fourty years now I could tell two nights alone nonstop about lost riggs because of breaking toggles, tiring wires and collapsed spreaders. Best site to get the clou might be the Sponberg-site, as he explains a lot about how it works, why it's still not generally accepted by the market, and he lists a lot of different boats in his "articles"-collection. Am 31.05.2011 um 00:03 schrieb wild_explorer: > Yesterday I was watching one sailboat (about 40 ft) going upwind. It had Cat rig with "wishbone" boom. It outran all sailboats around (even ones used engines) and was handled just by one man. Man only "ducked" to stay clear from boom/sail when boat changed direction. I did not see him even touching any lines. He just kept going... And impressively fast. > > Does anybody have experience with such rig? Pro/Cons??? > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25906|25903|2011-05-31 11:51:56|SHANE ROTHWELL|Wishbone cat rig?|Apperances can be deceiving. Having to duck under the spar when you tack.... One fuckup & your overside... (you wake up, bit groggy, stumble on deck, & before your eyes adjust to the light/lack of light your crew, a newbie, jibes & your gone) Whatever it is, your going to need a sheet on it to control it. By definition it's an unstayed spar. Not uncommon sight to see Catboats limping back into port without that rather useful gadget. Ask around at the Waikiki & the Honolulu yacht clubs, they've seen it enuf... Sounds like he just had enough way on to carry him through the tack & either had his traveller set amidships or delt with it later once on the new tack It may sound like I'm bitching about the inadequecy of the rig, which in my mind are considerabel, but I'm green with envy that anyone is out sailing at all!   I think most of us have been impressed with Brent's simplification of systems, construction  & the removal of the bullshit & marketing from building & operating a sailing vessel. The old tried & true markonie (sp) rig is pretty simple, easy to control and cheap (espcially if you listen to his advice re spar & standing rigging) provided you just stick to the basics, ignore anything other than simple slab reefing (with the possible exception of roller furling, but even that should be stowed when things get ugly)   Why try to re-invent the wheel?   Wishbone cat rig? Posted by: "wild_explorer" williswildest@...   wild_explorer Mon May 30, 2011 3:03 pm (PDT) Yesterday I was watching one sailboat (about 40 ft) going upwind. It had Cat rig with "wishbone" boom. It outran all sailboats around (even ones used engines) and was handled just by one man. Man only "ducked" to stay clear from boom/sail when boat changed direction. I did not see him even touching any lines. He just kept going... And impressively fast. Does anybody have experience with such rig? Pro/Cons???| 25907|25903|2011-05-31 12:39:38|Barney Treadway|Re: Wishbone cat rig?|Hmmm just curious, marconi is simple compared to? SHANE ROTHWELL wrote: >Apperances can be deceiving. >Having to duck under the spar when you tack.... One fuckup & your overside... >(you wake up, bit groggy, stumble on deck, & before your eyes adjust to the >light/lack of light your crew, a newbie, jibes & your gone) >Whatever it is, your going to need a sheet on it to control it. >By definition it's an unstayed spar. Not uncommon sight to see Catboats limping >back into port without > >that rather useful gadget. Ask around at the Waikiki & the Honolulu yacht clubs, >they've seen it enuf... >Sounds like he just had enough way on to carry him through the tack & either had >his traveller set amidships or delt with it later once on the new tack >It may sound like I'm bitching about the inadequecy of the rig, which in my mind >are considerabel, but I'm green with envy that anyone is out sailing at all! >  >I think most of us have been impressed with Brent's simplification of systems, >construction  & the removal of the bullshit & marketing from building & >operating a sailing vessel. The old tried & true markonie (sp) rig is pretty >simple, easy to control and cheap (espcially if you listen to his advice re spar >& standing rigging) provided you just stick to the basics, ignore anything other >than simple slab reefing (with the possible exception of roller furling, but >even that should be stowed when things get ugly) >  >Why try to re-invent the wheel? >  >Wishbone cat rig? >Posted by: "wild_explorer" williswildest@...   wild_explorer >Mon May 30, 2011 3:03 pm (PDT) > > >Yesterday I was watching one sailboat (about 40 ft) going upwind. It had Cat rig >with "wishbone" boom. It outran all sailboats around (even ones used engines) >and was handled just by one man. Man only "ducked" to stay clear from boom/sail >when boat changed direction. I did not see him even touching any lines. He just >kept going... And impressively fast. > >Does anybody have experience with such rig? Pro/Cons??? | 25908|25903|2011-05-31 12:55:31|wild_explorer|Re: Wishbone cat rig?|It appeared that he was "ducking" during a tack. The man was standing tall behind steering wheel all others times. It was 1 mast rig. It is not a discussion "what rig is better". I am just curious... I saw only about 3 boats with such rig in several years. Cons: Free standing mast (heavier) Pros: Only one sail --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, SHANE ROTHWELL wrote: > > > Having to duck under the spar when you tack.... One fuckup & your overside... > | 25909|25903|2011-05-31 13:19:22|Matt Malone|Re: Wishbone cat rig?|Cons: Only one sail. Wishbones are big, because they have to hold the sail differently than a boom. Wishbones are the only way to go on a wind-surfer, because the rider is holding the up-wind side of the wishbone. On a boat, different requirements. How does one lower sail / reef with a wishbone? How does one put on a smaller sail ? Not as easily as with a boom it seems to me. With a boom, and a traveller, it might not be an easy job, but it seems more straight-forward, it can be taken in steps, and there is something to lash the sail to as you work. Also, on a 40 foot boat, that is one big sail. I was never the thick-neck type, and getting a little older, I like the idea of dividing the sail plan a bit into smaller pieces. Yes it takes more thinking, but, I would rather that than one huge sail. What does one have if something goes wrong with that one sail ? Running downwind with headsails is an easy way to ease the affect of weather and seas, reduce the dynamics, the apparent force of the wind, and deal with a problem with the main -- only one of many tactics. Less sails, less options. I agree, they look nice. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: williswildest@... Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 16:55:20 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: Wishbone cat rig? It appeared that he was "ducking" during a tack. The man was standing tall behind steering wheel all others times. It was 1 mast rig. It is not a discussion "what rig is better". I am just curious... I saw only about 3 boats with such rig in several years. Cons: Free standing mast (heavier) Pros: Only one sail --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, SHANE ROTHWELL wrote: > > > Having to duck under the spar when you tack.... One fuckup & your overside... > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25910|25903|2011-05-31 20:23:24|Mark Hamill|Re: Wishbone cat rig?|The person that developed the rig wanted to get rid of the boom because a traditional boom had killed a friend in an accident. Originally the wish booms were quite light and over time became quite heavy--I have some photos somewhere that show very heavy wish booms. To reef you just follow the procedure for that rig. I think the masts are carbon fiber?? I don't know anything other than that--but have wondered if the cat type rig has the traditional cat boat problems of heavy helm?? I have always liked these rigs. MarkH| 25911|25903|2011-06-01 06:39:42|Giuseppe Bergman|Re: Wishbone cat rig?|Masts do not have to be carbon fiber, there are aluminium masts and solid wooden ones as well as hollow/built wooden spars to find on different ships, even ply-glass-alureinforced wing-versions are said to work fine, though the carbon fiber spar might offer the best correlation between weight and strength. Disadvantage: the freestanding spar has to be a lot thicker in his first third or half above deck, what increases drag significantly, and what led to the "wrap-around-sails" (Freedom) and the mast-sleeves (Wharram), or to the High-Tech-gadget "turning wingmast" which would become a part of the sail's wingform, even if One shouldn't go as far as oracle-BMW went it in their vastly useless Monster-Tri. Reefing under conventional wishboned sails is as easy as any traditional lazy-jack-reefing, and the sail could be constructed below the wishbone-boom as a pocket to simply let fall in the reefed part. Reefing wrap-around-sails is a different story. When it comes to sailshape, wishbones do offer shaping sails from "flat" to "loose" with only one line to handle. At least as far as "limping back to shore" is concerned: I saw quite some twenty to thirty year old unstayed carbon cat ketch riggs recently, and the spars including their steps/partners usually were the part with definitely the least problems to find, nonetheless they mostly were the original ones. Heavy helm already to be seen in the surface area of the rudders is a concern in monomasted cat riggs, but dividing the sail area in two (or more) sails = masts solves this. A nice version of connecting both worlds, free standing masts but conventional boomed main/lose footed overlapping fore that is, shows Nigel Irens' "fusion schooner", and Nigel Irens is definitely not known for slow or chubby sailing ships. Am 01.06.2011 um 02:23 schrieb Mark Hamill: > The person that developed the rig wanted to get rid of the boom because a > traditional boom had killed a friend in an accident. Originally the wish > booms were quite light and over time became quite heavy--I have some photos > somewhere that show very heavy wish booms. To reef you just follow the > procedure for that rig. I think the masts are carbon fiber?? I don't know > anything other than that--but have wondered if the cat type rig has the > traditional cat boat problems of heavy helm?? I have always liked these > rigs. MarkH > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25912|25903|2011-06-01 11:32:24|SHANE ROTHWELL|Re: Wishbone cat rig?|Barney,   Compared to anything, absolutely anything.   What other form of rig has been so successful? and stays standing  - provided you actually have a look at it every once in a while?   True, many, including myself have been sucked into the stainless steel standing rigging (hey suckah) "no maintainance" money trap, but if you chuck the stainless, you have a good, simple, relyable rig.   What other rig works consistantly?   Re: Wishbone cat rig? Posted by: "Barney Treadway" barney@...   barnamos Tue May 31, 2011 9:39 am (PDT) Hmmm just curious, marconi is simple compared to? SHANE ROTHWELL wrote: >Apperances can be deceiving. >Having to duck under the spar when you tack.... One fuckup & your overside... >(you wake up, bit groggy, stumble on deck, & before your eyes adjust to the >light/lack of light your crew, a newbie, jibes & your gone) >Whatever it is, your going to need a sheet on it to control it. >By definition it's an unstayed spar. Not uncommon sight to see Catboats limping >back into port without > >that rather useful gadget. Ask around at the Waikiki & the Honolulu yacht clubs, > >they've seen it enuf... >Sounds like he just had enough way on to carry him through the tack & either had > >his traveller set amidships or delt with it later once on the new tack >It may sound like I'm bitching about the inadequecy of the rig, which in my mind > >are considerabel,  but I'm green with envy that anyone is out sailing at all! >  >I think most of us have been impressed with Brent's simplification of systems, >construction  & the removal of the bullshit & marketing from building & >operating a sailing vessel. The old tried & true markonie (sp) rig is pretty >simple, easy to control and cheap (espcially if you listen to his advice re spar > >& standing rigging) provided you just stick to the basics, ignore anything other > >than simple slab reefing (with the possible exception of roller furling, but >even that should be stowed when things get ugly) >  >Why try to re-invent the wheel? >  >Wishbone cat rig? >Posted by: "wild_explorer" williswildest@ yahoo.com   wild_explorer >Mon May 30, 2011 3:03 pm (PDT) > > >Yesterday I was watching one sailboat (about 40 ft) going upwind. It had Cat rig > >with "wishbone" boom. It outran all sailboats around (even ones used engines) >and was handled just by one man. Man only "ducked" to stay clear from boom/sail >when boat changed direction. I did not see him even touching any lines. He just >kept going... And impressively fast. | 25913|25903|2011-06-01 23:25:30|Larry Deering|Re: Wishbone cat rig?|I've spent a lot of time sailing on a friends Nonesuch 36, and it has a wishbone, one very large sail, and an unstayed rig. There are a number of advantages of this rig. First is ease of handling, it tacks without effort, no winch cranking required. Tacking in tight quarters is fun, not a fright. The second advantage is that the wishbone acts like a boom vang, so the boom does not ride up putting excess twist in the sail. Third, the wishbone is a great place to hang lazy jacks from. When you reef or let the main down the sail falls through the wishbone and into the lazy jacks. The fourth advantage is reefing, the lines lead aft to the cockpit, and one or two slabs can be taken in a short time. From a designers standpoint, a freestanding mast has to be stronger and heavier than a marconi rig. Since it does not have shrouds and stays, it needs a strong mast step, partners, and something to hold the mast down. Small catboats usually have a headstay, but it is only there to hold the mast down in the step. The Nonesuch has a system under the deck. The Nonesuch is faster than most cruising sloops, but is not faster on a course with racing sloops with spinnakers. The sloops have a finer entry and go very well upwind. On a run the Nonesuch is very fast because jibs are not very efficient, but the racing sloops put up spinnakers to double sail area and get right up to or above hull speed. Now to pooh-pooh the idea of a wishbone boom being dangerous compared to a normal boom. It's just not true. The wishbone slants on a steep angle from the mast, so the very end is the lowest. The rest of it is way overhead. In order to get clunked in the head you would have to stand straight up as far aft as you can get on the boat. It's not foolproof and people have been hit, but far fewer than with a conventional boom that can strike you along the whole length. Here's the Nonesuch url: http://www.nonsuch.org/ Larry| 25914|25903|2011-06-02 09:38:44|Mark Hamill|Re: Wishbone cat rig?|I didn't say the wishboom was dangerous--quite the opposite-- I said the original designer came up with the idea od the wishboom as a way to prevent injury--a friend had been killed by a conventional boom and the originally lighter wishboom was meant to prevent this. MarkH [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25915|25903|2011-06-02 14:55:57|brentswain38|Re: Wishbone cat rig?|While the advantages are undeniable. I'm leery about an unstayed rig, especially offshore, where keeping the mast intact is a matter of life and death. If you leave a six foot line on the boom, and tie it off whenever you ease the sheet, it is not a hazard. Lazy jacks are just as easy to rig on a marconi rig, as is a vang, and are becoming far more common . Catboats have a reputation for an extremely heavy weather helm. A wide ( to increase stall angle) balanced rudder may help alleviate this problem. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Larry Deering wrote: > > I've spent a lot of time sailing on a friends Nonesuch 36, and it has a > wishbone, one very large sail, and an unstayed rig. There are a number > of advantages of this rig. First is ease of handling, it tacks without > effort, no winch cranking required. Tacking in tight quarters is fun, > not a fright. The second advantage is that the wishbone acts like a boom > vang, so the boom does not ride up putting excess twist in the sail. > Third, the wishbone is a great place to hang lazy jacks from. When you > reef or let the main down the sail falls through the wishbone and into > the lazy jacks. The fourth advantage is reefing, the lines lead aft to > the cockpit, and one or two slabs can be taken in a short time. > > From a designers standpoint, a freestanding mast has to be stronger and > heavier than a marconi rig. Since it does not have shrouds and stays, it > needs a strong mast step, partners, and something to hold the mast down. > Small catboats usually have a headstay, but it is only there to hold the > mast down in the step. The Nonesuch has a system under the deck. > > The Nonesuch is faster than most cruising sloops, but is not faster on a > course with racing sloops with spinnakers. The sloops have a finer entry > and go very well upwind. On a run the Nonesuch is very fast because jibs > are not very efficient, but the racing sloops put up spinnakers to > double sail area and get right up to or above hull speed. > > Now to pooh-pooh the idea of a wishbone boom being dangerous compared to > a normal boom. It's just not true. The wishbone slants on a steep angle > from the mast, so the very end is the lowest. The rest of it is way > overhead. In order to get clunked in the head you would have to stand > straight up as far aft as you can get on the boat. It's not foolproof > and people have been hit, but far fewer than with a conventional boom > that can strike you along the whole length. Here's the Nonesuch url: > http://www.nonsuch.org/ > > Larry > | 25916|25903|2011-06-02 14:58:33|brentswain38|Re: Wishbone cat rig?|Wishboom could just as easily be used on a marconi rig ,if that's what you want. Makes slab reffing much harder to arrange. If you don't like it, its easy to go back to a conventional boom. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" wrote: > > I didn't say the wishboom was dangerous--quite the opposite-- I said the original designer came up with the idea od the wishboom as a way to prevent injury--a friend had been killed by a conventional boom and the originally lighter wishboom was meant to prevent this. MarkH > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25917|25903|2011-06-02 15:55:51|brentswain38|Re: Wishbone cat rig?|When I post suggestions for more affordable ways of doing things, I get vehemently attacked by those who have a strong financial interest in keeping boats and their gear expensive. I have been banned from some metal boatbuilding sites, for suggesting that a simple stainless pipe nipple is all one needs for thru hulls on a steel boat, instead of a complex arrangement of flanges and bolts. We all hear of people being sucked into expensive car repair scams, being sold parts and repairs that were completely unecessary. My father mentioned changing a filtre in Saskatoon, then, when he got to Vancouver, a couple of days later, an auto repair scammer telling him it was very old, and needed replacement. The same principle is alive, and very predominant in the marine industry. They make their living off making boats far more complex than they need be, being as they are , paid by the hour , so the more hours they can make a job take, the more they get paid. I have been told that the yacht design business is in a major slump. Predictably, that has led to attacks on anyone who appears to be doing well, especially doing well by catering to those with less money than the fat cats they have been feeding off for so long. . . --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, SHANE ROTHWELL wrote: > > Barney, > � > Compared to anything, absolutely anything. > � > What other form of rig has been so successful? and stays standing� - provided > you actually have a look at it every once in a while? > > � > True, many, including myself have been sucked into the stainless steel standing > rigging (hey suckah) "no maintainance" money trap, but if you chuck the > stainless, you have a good, simple,�relyable rig. > � > What other rig works consistantly? > � > Re: Wishbone cat rig? > Posted by: "Barney Treadway" barney@... � barnamos > Tue May�31,�2011 9:39�am (PDT) > > > Hmmm just curious, marconi is simple compared to? > > SHANE ROTHWELL wrote: > > >Apperances can be deceiving. > >Having to duck under the spar when you tack.... One fuckup & your overside... > >(you wake up, bit groggy, stumble on deck, & before your eyes adjust to the > >light/lack of light your crew, a newbie, jibes & your gone) > >Whatever it is, your going to need a sheet on it to control it. > >By definition it's an unstayed spar. Not uncommon sight to see Catboats limping > > >back into port without > > > >that rather useful gadget. Ask around at the Waikiki & the Honolulu yacht clubs, > > > >they've seen it enuf... > >Sounds like he just had enough way on to carry him through the tack & either had > > > >his traveller set amidships or delt with it later once on the new tack > >It may sound like I'm bitching about the inadequecy of the rig, which in my mind > > > >are considerabel,� but I'm green with envy that anyone is out sailing at all! > >� > >I think most of us have been impressed with Brent's simplification of systems, > >construction �& the removal of the bullshit & marketing from building & > >operating a sailing vessel. The old tried & true markonie (sp) rig is pretty > >simple, easy to control and cheap (espcially if you listen to his advice re spar > > > >& standing rigging) provided you just stick to the basics, ignore anything other > > > >than simple slab reefing (with the possible exception of roller furling, but > >even that should be stowed when things get ugly) > >� > >Why try to re-invent the wheel? > >� > >Wishbone cat rig? > >Posted by: "wild_explorer" williswildest@ yahoo.com � wild_explorer > >Mon May�30,�2011 3:03�pm (PDT) > > > > > >Yesterday I was watching one sailboat (about 40 ft) going upwind. It had Cat rig > > > >with "wishbone" boom. It outran all sailboats around (even ones used engines) > >and was handled just by one man. Man only "ducked" to stay clear from boom/sail > > >when boat changed direction. I did not see him even touching any lines. He just > > >kept going... And impressively fast. > | 25918|25903|2011-06-03 03:39:11|Giuseppe Bergman|Re: Wishbone cat rig?|All that You write about seem to be a bunch of arguments PRO freestanding riggs, for those go without all the superspecialized terminals, pressed towards expensively braided shiny wires, and with no need for stainless two-way-turning bottlescrews and heavy-duty-toggles and so on at all. Plus, there is no rigging to destroy if You once have to let out sheets in a hurry and the booms or wishbones turn 180 degrees away from midship abaft. I perfectly agree with the far more complex than ever needed making of boats these days, a thing nowadays educated "engineers" ought to answer for, people without a single proper oilchange or at least one personally renewed alternator-belt down in the bilges of their recently drawn twelve-berth-three-showers-40-footer on their personal expert record, but still calling themselves specialists for yachts - or cars, that is, if You ever tried to change an indicator lightbulb in one of those modern integrated front end lens headlamps. It still is big business, and it does not live at all of simple, unintegrated and chip-free boats with two or three reliable sails easyly hoisted and reefed by one or two halfway welltrained sailors, but lives better and better of those poorly built gadget-overloaded one-way-plastic-game-boy-push-button-in-mast-toys You can observe in any marina in "developped" countries, waiting for somebody to fix the one or other system just to enable them getting back to their home-marina, where the fixed part will be exchanged completely once more, for "economic reasons", because the actual repair job on the poor construction would be twice or three times as costly than changing the whole group of worthless sub-assemblies. Am 02.06.2011 um 21:55 schrieb brentswain38: > When I post suggestions for more affordable ways of doing things, I get vehemently attacked by those who have a strong financial interest in keeping boats and their gear expensive. I have been banned from some metal boatbuilding sites, for suggesting that a simple stainless pipe nipple is all one needs for thru hulls on a steel boat, instead of a complex arrangement of flanges and bolts. > We all hear of people being sucked into expensive car repair scams, being sold parts and repairs that were completely unecessary. > My father mentioned changing a filtre in Saskatoon, then, when he got to Vancouver, a couple of days later, an auto repair scammer telling him it was very old, and needed replacement. > The same principle is alive, and very predominant in the marine industry. They make their living off making boats far more complex than they need be, being as they are , paid by the hour , so the more hours they can make a job take, the more they get paid. > I have been told that the yacht design business is in a major slump. Predictably, that has led to attacks on anyone who appears to be doing well, especially doing well by catering to those with less money than the fat cats they have been feeding off for so long. . . > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, SHANE ROTHWELL wrote: > > > > Barney, > > ��� > > Compared to anything, absolutely anything. > > ��� > > What other form of rig has been so successful? and stays standing��� - provided > > you actually have a look at it every once in a while? > > > > ��� > > True, many, including myself have been sucked into the stainless steel standing > > rigging (hey suckah) "no maintainance" money trap, but if you chuck the > > stainless, you have a good, simple,���relyable rig. > > ��� > > What other rig works consistantly? > > ��� > > Re: Wishbone cat rig? > > Posted by: "Barney Treadway" barney@... ��� barnamos > > Tue May���31,���2011 9:39���am (PDT) > > > > > > Hmmm just curious, marconi is simple compared to? > > > > SHANE ROTHWELL wrote: > > > > >Apperances can be deceiving. > > >Having to duck under the spar when you tack.... One fuckup & your overside... > > >(you wake up, bit groggy, stumble on deck, & before your eyes adjust to the > > >light/lack of light your crew, a newbie, jibes & your gone) > > >Whatever it is, your going to need a sheet on it to control it. > > >By definition it's an unstayed spar. Not uncommon sight to see Catboats limping > > > > >back into port without > > > > > >that rather useful gadget. Ask around at the Waikiki & the Honolulu yacht clubs, > > > > > >they've seen it enuf... > > >Sounds like he just had enough way on to carry him through the tack & either had > > > > > >his traveller set amidships or delt with it later once on the new tack > > >It may sound like I'm bitching about the inadequecy of the rig, which in my mind > > > > > >are considerabel,��� but I'm green with envy that anyone is out sailing at all! > > >��� > > >I think most of us have been impressed with Brent's simplification of systems, > > >construction ���& the removal of the bullshit & marketing from building & > > >operating a sailing vessel. The old tried & true markonie (sp) rig is pretty > > >simple, easy to control and cheap (espcially if you listen to his advice re spar > > > > > >& standing rigging) provided you just stick to the basics, ignore anything other > > > > > >than simple slab reefing (with the possible exception of roller furling, but > > >even that should be stowed when things get ugly) > > >��� > > >Why try to re-invent the wheel? > > >��� > > >Wishbone cat rig? > > >Posted by: "wild_explorer" williswildest@ yahoo.com ��� wild_explorer > > >Mon May���30,���2011 3:03���pm (PDT) > > > > > > > > >Yesterday I was watching one sailboat (about 40 ft) going upwind. It had Cat rig > > > > > >with "wishbone" boom. It outran all sailboats around (even ones used engines) > > >and was handled just by one man. Man only "ducked" to stay clear from boom/sail > > > > >when boat changed direction. I did not see him even touching any lines. He just > > > > >kept going... And impressively fast. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25919|25903|2011-06-03 11:41:01|Ben Okopnik|Re: Wishbone cat rig?|On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 07:55:50PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > My father mentioned changing a filtre in Saskatoon, then, when he got to Vancouver, a couple of days later, an auto repair scammer telling him it was very old, and needed replacement. A guy I knew went to work for Pennzoil in the early 70s as a salesman; he told me that one of the first things the company did for all of them was to replace their standard car filters with an adapter and a HUGE truck-type oil filter, and then told them never to change the oil - only add more if it got low. Supposedly, only a small percentage of the oil molecules were weak enough to be sheared; the rest just kept on working. Makes you wonder about the whole oil-changing game. 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| 25920|25903|2011-06-03 13:45:45|Matt Malone|Re: Wishbone cat rig?|Filter efficiencies are determined by the volume flow rate and the effective area of the filter material. Divide area into the volume flow rate, and one quickly sees it is the particle velocity through the filter that is important. By going with a huge filter, the filter area is greatly increased, the velocity through the filter medium is much lower, and the filter can be "tighter" and still not cause too much pressure drop across the filter. So a high-quality, huge filter can go a long way to more thoroughly cleaning the flow, and not clogging for a longer period of time. The same principles apply to fuel filters and air filters, and sand filters, for drinking water. Of course, with sand filters, one is paying heavily in weight, so, that is one case where going huge is not necessarily the best solution on a small boat. A relative was a heavy diesel mechanic, and took a lot of truck out on long runs. The scammer service stations would invariably ask the driver to open the hood so they could check the oil, and then palm a straight razor to slice nearly through the belts from the inside of the V. They would then say that the belts were badly cracked and they needed replacing too. As a mechanic he would often catch them at it. Later he owned an independent service station / gas station. They made more money from selling one quart of oil than they did for an entire tank of gas. Same with belts. That is what drives the dishonest ones. Find a dealership that does not want to change your tie-rods or ball joints (and do a full 4-wheel alignment) or machine your rotors, and you have probably found an honest one. Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: ben@... Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 02:59:19 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Wishbone cat rig? On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 07:55:50PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > My father mentioned changing a filtre in Saskatoon, then, when he got to Vancouver, a couple of days later, an auto repair scammer telling him it was very old, and needed replacement. A guy I knew went to work for Pennzoil in the early 70s as a salesman; he told me that one of the first things the company did for all of them was to replace their standard car filters with an adapter and a HUGE truck-type oil filter, and then told them never to change the oil - only add more if it got low. Supposedly, only a small percentage of the oil molecules were weak enough to be sheared; the rest just kept on working. Makes you wonder about the whole oil-changing game. 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] | 25921|25903|2011-06-03 14:21:23|brentswain38|Re: Wishbone cat rig?|I knew a guy from Saskatoon, who looked like a big ,dumb hillbilly , but was a sharp as a razor. While he was travelling thru North Dakota, a service station owner too one look at his Saskatchewan license plates, thought he had a sucker, so told him" Your tires are kinda bald ." The "Hick " said "Change them all." The scammer said "Your carburator is kinda old ." He said "Put a new one in." The scammer went thru the whole car this way , adding up a huge bill. When he handed the "Hick" the bill, the "Hick" handed him a phoney credit card, had it rung up, then drove way. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Filter efficiencies are determined by the volume flow rate and the effective area of the filter material. Divide area into the volume flow rate, and one quickly sees it is the particle velocity through the filter that is important. By going with a huge filter, the filter area is greatly increased, the velocity through the filter medium is much lower, and the filter can be "tighter" and still not cause too much pressure drop across the filter. So a high-quality, huge filter can go a long way to more thoroughly cleaning the flow, and not clogging for a longer period of time. The same principles apply to fuel filters and air filters, and sand filters, for drinking water. Of course, with sand filters, one is paying heavily in weight, so, that is one case where going huge is not necessarily the best solution on a small boat. > > A relative was a heavy diesel mechanic, and took a lot of truck out on long runs. The scammer service stations would invariably ask the driver to open the hood so they could check the oil, and then palm a straight razor to slice nearly through the belts from the inside of the V. They would then say that the belts were badly cracked and they needed replacing too. As a mechanic he would often catch them at it. Later he owned an independent service station / gas station. They made more > money from selling one quart of oil than they did for an entire tank of > gas. Same with belts. That is what drives the dishonest ones. Find a dealership that does not want to change your tie-rods or ball joints (and do a full 4-wheel alignment) or machine your rotors, and you have probably found an honest one. > > Matt > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: ben@... > Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 02:59:19 -0400 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Wishbone cat rig? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 07:55:50PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > > > > > My father mentioned changing a filtre in Saskatoon, then, when he got to Vancouver, a couple of days later, an auto repair scammer telling him it was very old, and needed replacement. > > > > A guy I knew went to work for Pennzoil in the early 70s as a salesman; > > he told me that one of the first things the company did for all of them > > was to replace their standard car filters with an adapter and a HUGE > > truck-type oil filter, and then told them never to change the oil - only > > add more if it got low. Supposedly, only a small percentage of the oil > > molecules were weak enough to be sheared; the rest just kept on working. > > Makes you wonder about the whole oil-changing game. > > > > 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] > | 25922|25903|2011-06-05 02:27:37|David Frantz|Re: Wishbone cat rig?|For the most part the oil won't break down. The real problem is the removal of contamination. A big filter, changed frequently, can help keep the oil usable but eventually stuff the filter can't handle builds up. Interestingly at work we have a few machines that are driven by hydraulics. We have a program of testing the oil with an outside service. If the service comes back with a recommendation to change the oil you can be fairly certain something is failing in the machine. Especially if brass or iron based particles are the primary reason for the advice. The other interesting thing with filtering on these machines is that the filters don't catch everything. Gunk will build up in the hydraulic oil tanks over the years. Sent from my iPad On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:59 AM, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 07:55:50PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: >> >> My father mentioned changing a filtre in Saskatoon, then, when he got to Vancouver, a couple of days later, an auto repair scammer telling him it was very old, and needed replacement. > > A guy I knew went to work for Pennzoil in the early 70s as a salesman; > he told me that one of the first things the company did for all of them > was to replace their standard car filters with an adapter and a HUGE > truck-type oil filter, and then told them never to change the oil - only > add more if it got low. Supposedly, only a small percentage of the oil > molecules were weak enough to be sheared; the rest just kept on working. > Makes you wonder about the whole oil-changing game. > > > 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 > > > | 25923|25923|2011-06-05 10:40:46|chopshopathome|where to buy rigging wire in canada|anybody have a good source for high tesile 1x7 rigging wire in canada? I need to build the rig on my 36' project here in southern ontario.| 25924|25924|2011-06-06 07:38:30|Denis Buggy|Re: great site for welding advice|Dear all MIG WELDING THE DIY GUIDE this is a great site for all who wish to know about welding and spray painting --- it is the best I have come across as it has videos with that crucial ingredient for welding SOUND = FRYING SAUSAGES which tells you when you have your set up at the sweet spot it is run by some generous people who give great advice re welders and spray guns ---their forum can answer many questions posed on a regular basis here . RE OIL we use Q 8 T 750 OIL and you can look up its spec sheet on line -- we must have Volvo VDS3 SPEC or we have no warranty on our vehicles --- we import the oil from the UK ourselves as the Irish suppliers are a rip off --some charging 700-800 euros per barrel + vat = 800-900 per 208 lt barrel retail . people who make their living from long haul trucks or buses buy this as it is the cheapest good oil available as it is not fully synthetic but semi synthetic and is a lot cheaper than full synthetic which is the recommended oil , when you make your living from vehicles you cannot mess about as you will pay big time for any mistake -- not changing oil is a big mistake -- putting shit into your engine instead of oil will guarantee a shitty time in the most remote -- most expensive location that bad luck will find . you can scratch the white metal coating on your crankshaft bearing surfaces with your fingernail as it is so soft -- put in millions of microscopic steel - brass - carbon - sand -particles and you have a wet sandblaster and when it has done its work the oil pressure drops as all the clearances are now bigger and all components start to suffer from oil starvation including your hydraulic tappets which depend on real oil to work . there is a great saying written over the Curragh race track clock near here where the richest rorse racing in the world takes place TIME TELLS ALL . Denis Buggy ----- Original Message ----- From: David Frantz To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Cc: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 7:27 AM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: Wishbone cat rig? For the most part the oil won't break down. The real problem is the removal of contamination. A big filter, changed frequently, can help keep the oil usable but eventually stuff the filter can't handle builds up. MARKETPLACE Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Find useful articles and helpful tips on living with Fibromyalgia. Visit the Fibromyalgia Zone today! Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25925|25923|2011-06-06 09:29:08|James Pronk|Re: where to buy rigging wire in canada|For new I go to Brafasco HD Supply, some are better then others. The one here in Peterborough can get me what I need and they are great to work with. http://www.brafasco.com/ For used I have been looking at Port Perry Salvage. It is hit and miss there but I stop in enough that in a couple for months I can find what I want. http://www.portperrysalvage.com/ Good luck, James --- On Sun, 6/5/11, chopshopathome wrote: From: chopshopathome Subject: [origamiboats] where to buy rigging wire in canada To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Received: Sunday, June 5, 2011, 10:40 AM   anybody have a good source for high tesile 1x7 rigging wire in canada? I need to build the rig on my 36' project here in southern ontario. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25926|25923|2011-06-06 10:48:42|mkriley48|air cooled diesels|anybody have a off the shelf solution for using a small chinese diesel for propulsion. Limited access to fabricating facilities. mike --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "chopshopathome" wrote: > > anybody have a good source for high tesile 1x7 rigging wire in canada? I need to build the rig on my 36' project here in southern ontario. > | 25927|25927|2011-06-06 15:00:57|wild_explorer|Using SketchUp for creating boat's interior|Did anybody use SketchUp (SU) for creating 3D interior for boat's shell? I found SU is up to the task in this field. Pretty easy to work with. It might safe some headache doing boat detailing. No need to have experience with 3D. But computer hardware should be compatible with SU. For example, I could not fit the engine under stairway. I had to move engine forward too far. It was because I used incorrect dimensions for the engine. Engine was too big ;)) I had to find proper dimensions for it. Now it will fit. Same with interior - easy to check headroom and proper width of pathways. Best of all, easy to move furniture around. Just grab and move, adjust if necessary ;) And you can make a model of yourself to see if interior works for you.| 25928|25927|2011-06-06 19:09:04|Barney Treadway|Re: Using SketchUp for creating boat's interior|Can you post the file somewhere? Id love to see how you used sketchup. wild_explorer wrote: >Did anybody use SketchUp (SU) for creating 3D interior for boat's shell? I found SU is up to the task in this field. Pretty easy to work with. It might safe some headache doing boat detailing. No need to have experience with 3D. But computer hardware should be compatible with SU. > >For example, I could not fit the engine under stairway. I had to move engine forward too far. It was because I used incorrect dimensions for the engine. Engine was too big ;)) I had to find proper dimensions for it. Now it will fit. Same with interior - easy to check headroom and proper width of pathways. Best of all, easy to move furniture around. Just grab and move, adjust if necessary ;) And you can make a model of yourself to see if interior works for you. > | 25929|25927|2011-06-07 12:16:57|wild_explorer|Re: Using SketchUp for creating boat's interior|It would not be much different than 3D models you can find in SketchUp 3D warehouse. Lot of images, no need to install SU to take a look. Search for sailboat http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/ Off-line documentation (what you can do and how) is here http://dl.google.com/sketchup/gsu7/docs/en/SketchUp7Help.pdf I will put some SU parts related to 3D modeling of the sailboat in file section. NOT knowing how to work with "standard" CAD 3D software helps ;)) --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Barney Treadway wrote: > > Can you post the file somewhere? Id love to see how you used sketchup. > > wild_explorer wrote: > > >Did anybody use SketchUp (SU) for creating 3D interior for boat's shell? I found SU is up to the task in this field. Pretty easy to work with. It might safe some headache doing boat detailing. No need to have experience with 3D. But computer hardware should be compatible with SU. | 25930|25930|2011-06-07 16:26:07|SHANE ROTHWELL|(no subject)|http://sharpstep.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/mysite.html [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25931|25931|2011-06-07 19:41:31|Doug - SubmarineBoat.com|Questions for you, Brent|Kay (wife) is back from the "Nuthin Wong" and we got "for the record" questions for you. Did you draw up the plans for that boat? If so did you do just the hull and did you plan for the Junk sails on her? And who did the work to build it? Did Jack Carson work any on that one? Thanks. Doug| 25932|25931|2011-06-07 20:23:50|brentswain38|Re: Questions for you, Brent|I did the hull shape, based on drawings he gave me of the Hangchow bay trader. I left the rig for those with more experience with the junk rig. I did a bit of work laying her out, and helping pull the hull together, and the tanks, etc. Ken Splett did the lions share of the work, altho a welding student did a lot of the long welds. Jack may have done some work on it, I don't know, as I wasn't there full time. Various people worked on her while I was cruising Mexico. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Doug - SubmarineBoat.com" wrote: > > Kay (wife) is back from the "Nuthin Wong" and we got "for the record" questions for you. Did you draw up the plans for that boat? If so did you do just the hull and did you plan for the Junk sails on her? And who did the work to build it? Did Jack Carson work any on that one? > > Thanks. > Doug > | 25933|25923|2011-06-07 20:27:04|brentswain38|Re: where to buy rigging wire in canada|There was wire rope place in Burnaby. Haven't been there in years, so don't know if it is still there. I find mine, still on the spool, in scrapyards. Make sure you get the springy, high tensile stuff. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "chopshopathome" wrote: > > anybody have a good source for high tesile 1x7 rigging wire in canada? I need to build the rig on my 36' project here in southern ontario. > | 25934|25923|2011-06-07 20:30:15|brentswain38|Re: air cooled diesels|I used an industrial air cooled diesel for my last engine. Had to weld up my own bell housing, not too tricky. Ran a dry exhaust. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mkriley48" wrote: > > anybody have a off the shelf solution for using a small chinese diesel for propulsion. Limited access to fabricating facilities. > mike > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "chopshopathome" wrote: > > > > anybody have a good source for high tesile 1x7 rigging wire in canada? I need to build the rig on my 36' project here in southern ontario. > > > | 25935|25923|2011-06-08 06:25:47|Kim|Re: air cooled diesels|Hi Mike ... The alibaba.com site lists almost 14,000 Chinese-made diesels (and 600 from India): http://www.alibaba.com/products/diesel_engines/--1432.html Many are (fresh) water cooled. Most are air-cooled. Most are very heavy! Most do not have a (marine) gearbox fitted; but some do (eg: http://www.alibaba.com/product-tp/110307261/HB21D1_Marine_Engine.html). If you do a search on alibaba.com for "marine diesel engines" you'll get about 2000 hits for Chinese-made engines; but not many of them look like "marine" engines to me. All of them are unbelieveably cheap!! But I guess the purchaser would have to arrange shipping and importing, etc, which could be a non-trivial task. At one stage I was thinking of getting one of these for the Swain 26 I'm building; but likely problems getting parts, and their general reputation for not being too reliable (and/or a reputation of having relatively short lifespans), has turned me off the idea. OTOH you could buy 3 or 4 of them for the price of a similar HP Yanmar! Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht ______________________________________________________________ --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mkriley48" wrote: > > anybody have a off the shelf solution for using a small chinese diesel for propulsion. Limited access to fabricating facilities. > mike ______________________________________________________________ | 25936|25923|2011-06-08 09:19:56|Mark Hamill|Re: air cooled diesels|This thread at the Wooden Boat forum might be of interest. http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?5345-cheap-chinese-diesels www.chinadiesel.com used to sell the engines but had to stop because of the EPA. They used to have a diesel outboard of 4 hp or so. They still sell parts so that may be of interest. I know the chinese diesels intented for boats were advertised in wooden boat ?? in the distant past but i haven't seen them in ages. MarkH Hi Mike ... The alibaba.com site lists almost 14,000 Chinese-made diesels (and 600 from India): http://www.alibaba.com/products/diesel_engines/--1432.html Many are (fresh) water cooled. Most are air-cooled. Most are very heavy! Most do not have a (marine) gearbox fitted; but some do (eg: http://www.alibaba.com/product-tp/110307261/HB21D1_Marine_Engine.html). If you do a search on alibaba.com for "marine diesel engines" you'll get about 2000 hits for Chinese-made engines; but not many of them look like "marine" engines to me. All of them are unbelieveably cheap!! But I guess the purchaser would have to arrange shipping and importing, etc, which could be a non-trivial task. At one stage I was thinking of getting one of these for the Swain 26 I'm building; but likely problems getting parts, and their general reputation for not being too reliable (and/or a reputation of having relatively short lifespans), has turned me off the idea. OTOH you could buy 3 or 4 of them for the price of a similar HP Yanmar! Cheers ... Kim. My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht __________________________________________________________ . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25937|25937|2011-06-08 20:20:39|m m|brent swain's book|i know that i am preaching to the choir when i say this but brent swain's book, origami boatbuilding, really is a masterpiece. i bought it a couple of months ago and have been reading and re-reading it since then. it has loads of practical instruction on how to build a steel vessel from scratch, but it also talks extensively about the 'why' of everything as well. also, there is great boating philosophy and wisdom in this book. for those of you who might not have it yet, i would highly recommend it. fair winds. mike meeker florida ________________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25938|25938|2011-06-09 11:08:37|SHANE ROTHWELL|VIRUS ALLERT!|Hey guys, I hope no one opened the attachment that was attached to a posting from my computer with no subject! Some son of a bitch infected my computer with a virus. It's the attachment, if you open it it takes all the addresses in your computer and spreads it to them, and on & on. No clue as to how it happened but it takes over your address book. Sorry, but this was completely beyond my control & the shit is hitting the fan in a big way. I ALWAYS put in a subject and am learning the hard way never to open an email that has no subject regardless of who it appears to be from. Shane| 25939|25923|2011-06-09 15:50:42|brentswain38|Re: air cooled diesels|I've heard Princes Auto in Winnipeg has a 10 hp air cooled diesel for around $600, definitely a disposable at that price. I have also been told of a watercooled diesel made in Japan for even less. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > Hi Mike ... > > The alibaba.com site lists almost 14,000 Chinese-made diesels (and 600 from India): http://www.alibaba.com/products/diesel_engines/--1432.html > > Many are (fresh) water cooled. Most are air-cooled. Most are very heavy! Most do not have a (marine) gearbox fitted; but some do (eg: http://www.alibaba.com/product-tp/110307261/HB21D1_Marine_Engine.html). > > If you do a search on alibaba.com for "marine diesel engines" you'll get about 2000 hits for Chinese-made engines; but not many of them look like "marine" engines to me. > > All of them are unbelieveably cheap!! But I guess the purchaser would have to arrange shipping and importing, etc, which could be a non-trivial task. > > At one stage I was thinking of getting one of these for the Swain 26 I'm building; but likely problems getting parts, and their general reputation for not being too reliable (and/or a reputation of having relatively short lifespans), has turned me off the idea. OTOH you could buy 3 or 4 of them for the price of a similar HP Yanmar! > > Cheers ... > > Kim. > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > ______________________________________________________________ > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mkriley48" wrote: > > > > anybody have a off the shelf solution for using a small chinese diesel for propulsion. Limited access to fabricating facilities. > > mike > ______________________________________________________________ > | 25940|25923|2011-06-10 09:16:55|mkriley48|Re: air cooled diesels|the princess auto engine is what I was thinking of. any ideas of a easy to make transmission for it? thanks mike --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I've heard Princes Auto in Winnipeg has a 10 hp air cooled diesel for around $600, definitely a disposable at that price. > I have also been told of a watercooled diesel made in Japan for even less. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Mike ... > > > > The alibaba.com site lists almost 14,000 Chinese-made diesels (and 600 from India): http://www.alibaba.com/products/diesel_engines/--1432.html > > > > Many are (fresh) water cooled. Most are air-cooled. Most are very heavy! Most do not have a (marine) gearbox fitted; but some do (eg: http://www.alibaba.com/product-tp/110307261/HB21D1_Marine_Engine.html). > > > > If you do a search on alibaba.com for "marine diesel engines" you'll get about 2000 hits for Chinese-made engines; but not many of them look like "marine" engines to me. > > > > All of them are unbelieveably cheap!! But I guess the purchaser would have to arrange shipping and importing, etc, which could be a non-trivial task. > > > > At one stage I was thinking of getting one of these for the Swain 26 I'm building; but likely problems getting parts, and their general reputation for not being too reliable (and/or a reputation of having relatively short lifespans), has turned me off the idea. OTOH you could buy 3 or 4 of them for the price of a similar HP Yanmar! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mkriley48" wrote: > > > > > > anybody have a off the shelf solution for using a small chinese diesel for propulsion. Limited access to fabricating facilities. > > > mike > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > | 25941|25923|2011-06-10 12:11:52|Matt Malone|Re: air cooled diesels|Use a snowmobile belt ? And fixed pulleys ? Or snowmobile pulleys that have been first bolted & tested and then welded at the correct ratio ? Princess Auto also sells all sorts of sprockets and chains. The real problem is reverse. You might consider a hydraulic transmission i.e. a pump and motor with a reversing valve. That would also allow you more freedom as to where you mount the engine, you just need longer hoses... I saw one cabin configuration where the engine was in the center of the cabin, under the table. The table came off, as did the 4 insulated and sound-proofed side panels making the engine completely accessible on all sides right in the middle of the cabin. Something like this is very easy with a hydraulic-coupled drivetrain. All those are off-the-shelf parts at Princess Auto and likely any farm / industrial supplier world wide. At $600 for an engine, pack a spare, and get ready to attach the pump to yet a different cheap engine. That is, if you are going to go non-marine, why not go all the way ? Matt ------------------------------------------------------------ To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: mkriley48@... Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:16:53 +0000 Subject: [origamiboats] Re: air cooled diesels the princess auto engine is what I was thinking of. any ideas of a easy to make transmission for it? thanks mike --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > I've heard Princes Auto in Winnipeg has a 10 hp air cooled diesel for around $600, definitely a disposable at that price. > I have also been told of a watercooled diesel made in Japan for even less. > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Mike ... > > > > The alibaba.com site lists almost 14,000 Chinese-made diesels (and 600 from India): http://www.alibaba.com/products/diesel_engines/--1432.html > > > > Many are (fresh) water cooled. Most are air-cooled. Most are very heavy! Most do not have a (marine) gearbox fitted; but some do (eg: http://www.alibaba.com/product-tp/110307261/HB21D1_Marine_Engine.html). > > > > If you do a search on alibaba.com for "marine diesel engines" you'll get about 2000 hits for Chinese-made engines; but not many of them look like "marine" engines to me. > > > > All of them are unbelieveably cheap!! But I guess the purchaser would have to arrange shipping and importing, etc, which could be a non-trivial task. > > > > At one stage I was thinking of getting one of these for the Swain 26 I'm building; but likely problems getting parts, and their general reputation for not being too reliable (and/or a reputation of having relatively short lifespans), has turned me off the idea. OTOH you could buy 3 or 4 of them for the price of a similar HP Yanmar! > > > > Cheers ... > > > > Kim. > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > __________________________________________________________ > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mkriley48" wrote: > > > > > > anybody have a off the shelf solution for using a small chinese diesel for propulsion. Limited access to fabricating facilities. > > > mike > > __________________________________________________________ > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25942|25923|2011-06-10 14:03:06|brentswain38|Re: air cooled diesels|I tried various arrangements, but eventually had several trannys given to me, or found used ones super cheap. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mkriley48" wrote: > > the princess auto engine is what I was thinking of. > any ideas of a easy to make transmission for it? > thanks > mike > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > I've heard Princes Auto in Winnipeg has a 10 hp air cooled diesel for around $600, definitely a disposable at that price. > > I have also been told of a watercooled diesel made in Japan for even less. > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Mike ... > > > > > > The alibaba.com site lists almost 14,000 Chinese-made diesels (and 600 from India): http://www.alibaba.com/products/diesel_engines/--1432.html > > > > > > Many are (fresh) water cooled. Most are air-cooled. Most are very heavy! Most do not have a (marine) gearbox fitted; but some do (eg: http://www.alibaba.com/product-tp/110307261/HB21D1_Marine_Engine.html). > > > > > > If you do a search on alibaba.com for "marine diesel engines" you'll get about 2000 hits for Chinese-made engines; but not many of them look like "marine" engines to me. > > > > > > All of them are unbelieveably cheap!! But I guess the purchaser would have to arrange shipping and importing, etc, which could be a non-trivial task. > > > > > > At one stage I was thinking of getting one of these for the Swain 26 I'm building; but likely problems getting parts, and their general reputation for not being too reliable (and/or a reputation of having relatively short lifespans), has turned me off the idea. OTOH you could buy 3 or 4 of them for the price of a similar HP Yanmar! > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > Kim. > > > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mkriley48" wrote: > > > > > > > > anybody have a off the shelf solution for using a small chinese diesel for propulsion. Limited access to fabricating facilities. > > > > mike > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > | 25943|25923|2011-06-10 14:11:33|brentswain38|Re: air cooled diesels|With an air cooled engine , soundproofing is extremely difficult. If I could put an engine anywhere, I'd put it under the cockpit anyway, so the ability to locate it anywhere doesn't justify hydraulics.Under the cockpit has the best opportunity to get the hot air outside, and keep your exhaust pipe short. The only way to use a belt drive is to put the bearing solidly on the engine mounts, so when the engine dances, the end of the shaft dances in Rythm. Reverse is a major problem. My last boat had no reverse , but I could idle it down a long way, so the boat was almost dead in the water.Leaving a dock simply took a bit more planning. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Matt Malone wrote: > > > > Use a snowmobile belt ? And fixed pulleys ? Or snowmobile pulleys that have been first bolted & tested and then welded at the correct ratio ? Princess Auto also sells all sorts of sprockets and chains. The real problem is reverse. You might consider a hydraulic transmission i.e. a pump and motor with a reversing valve. That would also allow you more freedom as to where you mount the engine, you just need longer hoses... I saw one cabin configuration where the engine was in the center of the > cabin, under the table. The table came off, as did the 4 insulated and > sound-proofed side panels making the engine completely accessible on all > sides right in the middle of the cabin. Something like this is very > easy with a hydraulic-coupled drivetrain. All those are off-the-shelf parts at Princess Auto and likely any farm / industrial supplier world wide. At $600 for an engine, pack a spare, and get ready to attach the pump to yet a different cheap engine. > > That is, if you are going to go non-marine, why not go all the way ? > > Matt > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: mkriley48@... > Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:16:53 +0000 > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: air cooled diesels > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the princess auto engine is what I was thinking of. > > any ideas of a easy to make transmission for it? > > thanks > > mike > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > > > > I've heard Princes Auto in Winnipeg has a 10 hp air cooled diesel for around $600, definitely a disposable at that price. > > > I have also been told of a watercooled diesel made in Japan for even less. > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Mike ... > > > > > > > > The alibaba.com site lists almost 14,000 Chinese-made diesels (and 600 from India): http://www.alibaba.com/products/diesel_engines/--1432.html > > > > > > > > Many are (fresh) water cooled. Most are air-cooled. Most are very heavy! Most do not have a (marine) gearbox fitted; but some do (eg: http://www.alibaba.com/product-tp/110307261/HB21D1_Marine_Engine.html). > > > > > > > > If you do a search on alibaba.com for "marine diesel engines" you'll get about 2000 hits for Chinese-made engines; but not many of them look like "marine" engines to me. > > > > > > > > All of them are unbelieveably cheap!! But I guess the purchaser would have to arrange shipping and importing, etc, which could be a non-trivial task. > > > > > > > > At one stage I was thinking of getting one of these for the Swain 26 I'm building; but likely problems getting parts, and their general reputation for not being too reliable (and/or a reputation of having relatively short lifespans), has turned me off the idea. OTOH you could buy 3 or 4 of them for the price of a similar HP Yanmar! > > > > > > > > Cheers ... > > > > > > > > Kim. > > > > > > > > My Swain 26 construction photos: http://tinyurl.com/Kims-Yacht > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "mkriley48" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > anybody have a off the shelf solution for using a small chinese diesel for propulsion. Limited access to fabricating facilities. > > > > > mike > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25948|25948|2011-06-15 13:16:11|brentswain38|Privatizing Squirrel Cove|I have just been sent an email about a huge private development in Squirrel Cove, on Cortes Island, which may put the anchorage off limits to most cruisers. I wonder if they are using the new legislation passed by the feds, which gave Nananimo the right to charge people for anchoring there. How nmany more anchorages wil fall to "Privatization" the feds new obsession? Secret agenda? Altho it hasn't been approved; yet, the sickness is spreading. Expect a lot of confrontation over the spreading sickness. (greed and fascism)| 25950|25950|2011-06-19 12:21:15|kelong_2000|electric motors?|Wondering if any of these Origamiboats have been outfitted with an electric motor, instead of the traditional diesel? Seems like a nice combination... stumbled across this article of a 45-foot catamaran outfitted with two 10kw motors. http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1837 Under sail, the motor acts as a generator, recharging the batteries. I thought this was a really appealing ability. Here's someone retro fitting old Catalina 30s... he has some interesting youtube videos, also. http://www.propulsionmarine.com/electric/5kw Thanks Ken| 25951|25950|2011-06-19 12:32:05|Aaron|Re: electric motors?|Go over to e electric boat group there is one that went with electric. I would like to but the economics just don't work yet ________________________________ From: kelong_2000 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 5:17:49 AM Subject: [origamiboats] electric motors?   Wondering if any of these Origamiboats have been outfitted with an electric motor, instead of the traditional diesel? Seems like a nice combination... stumbled across this article of a 45-foot catamaran outfitted with two 10kw motors. http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1837 Under sail, the motor acts as a generator, recharging the batteries. I thought this was a really appealing ability. Here's someone retro fitting old Catalina 30s... he has some interesting youtube videos, also. http://www.propulsionmarine.com/electric/5kw Thanks Ken [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25952|25950|2011-06-19 12:32:08|j fisher|Re: electric motors?|there has been talk of it, but I have not heard of anyone who has done an actual install. I do have some feedback from a cruising couple who bought one on the lagoon 4300 (?) with the hybrid drive. they have now removed the hybrid drive and replaced it with diesel only. On that system they found that the electric only system had very short range and they were running the engines anyway to provide enough electricity. It was cheaper and simpler to just run a diesel if you were going to do any motoring. They do tend to motor more that I would while cruising, but I found it interesting that they spent the $$ to remove the hybrid system. On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:17 AM, kelong_2000 wrote: > ** > > > Wondering if any of these Origamiboats have been outfitted with an electric > motor, instead of the traditional diesel? > > Seems like a nice combination... > > stumbled across this article of a 45-foot catamaran outfitted with two 10kw > motors. > http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1837 > > Under sail, the motor acts as a generator, recharging the batteries. > I thought this was a really appealing ability. > > Here's someone retro fitting old Catalina 30s... > he has some interesting youtube videos, also. > http://www.propulsionmarine.com/electric/5kw > > Thanks > Ken > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25953|25950|2011-06-19 14:52:25|brentswain38|Re: electric motors?|Victor went electric on a new 36. I don't think the batteries are advanced enough ,nor affordable enough at this point to make it practical in BC. In sunny latitudes,where the trade winds are strong enough to enable a wind generator to give lots of power from a wind generator, and solar panels work well, and reliable winds reduce the need for motoring ( Like the West Indies or Vanuatu) it may well be a practical option. I remember an old Finn in Nanaimo, who's alternator was long dead, and he depended on his wind generator and solar panels for power. He spent a whole month with a heavy overcast, and not a breath of wind, all to common here. Batteries don't like to lie uncharged for too long. If you go for day sails, and tie to a dock most of the time, it may be an alternative, but for full time cruising, it is just not practical here, yet. The Newcastle Island ferry in Nanaimo has an electric version, but they tie to a power source every nite. I get a laugh out of environmentalists talking about the "Clean " electric vehicle alternative that the Chinese are building. Where does the bulk of Chinese electricity come from? Coal fired generators! Where does most of US electricity come from?Coal fired generators! What do you plug your "Clean" electric vehicle into for recharging? A coal burning source of power! Some "Clean" solution! --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, j fisher wrote: > > there has been talk of it, but I have not heard of anyone who has done an > actual install. I do have some feedback from a cruising couple who bought > one on the lagoon 4300 (?) with the hybrid drive. they have now removed the > hybrid drive and replaced it with diesel only. On that system they found > that the electric only system had very short range and they were running the > engines anyway to provide enough electricity. It was cheaper and simpler to > just run a diesel if you were going to do any motoring. They do tend to > motor more that I would while cruising, but I found it interesting that they > spent the $$ to remove the hybrid system. > > > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:17 AM, kelong_2000 wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > Wondering if any of these Origamiboats have been outfitted with an electric > > motor, instead of the traditional diesel? > > > > Seems like a nice combination... > > > > stumbled across this article of a 45-foot catamaran outfitted with two 10kw > > motors. > > http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1837 > > > > Under sail, the motor acts as a generator, recharging the batteries. > > I thought this was a really appealing ability. > > > > Here's someone retro fitting old Catalina 30s... > > he has some interesting youtube videos, also. > > http://www.propulsionmarine.com/electric/5kw > > > > Thanks > > Ken > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25954|25950|2011-06-19 19:23:41|Ben Okopnik|Re: electric motors?|On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 06:52:15PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > I get a laugh out of environmentalists talking about the "Clean " electric vehicle alternative that the Chinese are building. > Where does the bulk of Chinese electricity come from? Coal fired generators! > Where does most of US electricity come from?Coal fired generators! > What do you plug your "Clean" electric vehicle into for recharging? A coal burning source of power! > Some "Clean" solution! Not that this is any saving grace, but the Chinese are actually doing a lot better than the US on that score: they've built the world's largest hydroelectric dam (Three Gorges), and they also have the Jinsha River complex; that's almost 100,000 MW just from those alone, and they're building more. Us, we're still burning coal and oil for almost all our power, and our politicians are sneering at proposals like the Pickens Plan (wind generators in the wind corridor; would have been 4,000 MW from Texas alone...) By the way, why is there a hollow echo where our economy used to be? Rah, rah. Go, us. [sigh] 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| 25955|25950|2011-06-19 20:14:39|David Frantz|Re: electric motors?|Having worked in industry for years I can say properly sized electric motors are fantastic. They run for years with no problem. The problem in a boat or automobile for that matter is where do you get power. Batteries are only good for short bursts and fuel cells are not exactly plug and play. Thus you have to consider carefully how you expect to use the motors and recharge the batteries. I suppose the only good thing about batteries is that they can be recharged at sea. If you run out of diesel your motor is no good. Sent from my iPad On Jun 19, 2011, at 9:17 AM, kelong_2000 wrote: > Wondering if any of these Origamiboats have been outfitted with an electric motor, instead of the traditional diesel? > > Seems like a nice combination... > > stumbled across this article of a 45-foot catamaran outfitted with two 10kw motors. > http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1837 > > Under sail, the motor acts as a generator, recharging the batteries. > I thought this was a really appealing ability. > > Here's someone retro fitting old Catalina 30s... > he has some interesting youtube videos, also. > http://www.propulsionmarine.com/electric/5kw > > Thanks > Ken > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 25956|25950|2011-06-19 21:04:19|Kenneth Long|Re: electric motors?|Hi Yeah, being able to recharge from the prop spinning while under sail impresses me. On that one guy's video he was generate 2 amps of regen power while sailing with a good wind. The other thought I had regarding electric motors, is I understand they have high torque at low RPM. And can therefore use a larger diameter prop. So I was wondering how that would affect these designs, with the rudder and skeg? I guess it could be fashioned to use a larger prop? Domestic electric power being generated with coal kind of stinks... I read it was around 30% efficient. and eventually it will all be mined away. I haven't priced the batteries but I understand those are pricey, especially having enough to provide enough amp-hours for all day motoring, if necessary. when I park my truck in the winter, I need to plug in an electric cord to be able to start it in the morning- old 7.3L powerstroke. all motors seem to need some extra TLC in extreme environments. thanks Kenneth Long --- On Sun, 6/19/11, David Frantz wrote: From: David Frantz Subject: Re: [origamiboats] electric motors? To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Cc: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" Date: Sunday, June 19, 2011, 8:14 PM   Having worked in industry for years I can say properly sized electric motors are fantastic. They run for years with no problem. The problem in a boat or automobile for that matter is where do you get power. Batteries are only good for short bursts and fuel cells are not exactly plug and play. Thus you have to consider carefully how you expect to use the motors and recharge the batteries. I suppose the only good thing about batteries is that they can be recharged at sea. If you run out of diesel your motor is no good. Sent from my iPad On Jun 19, 2011, at 9:17 AM, kelong_2000 wrote: > Wondering if any of these Origamiboats have been outfitted with an electric motor, instead of the traditional diesel? > > Seems like a nice combination... > > stumbled across this article of a 45-foot catamaran outfitted with two 10kw motors. > http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1837 > > Under sail, the motor acts as a generator, recharging the batteries. > I thought this was a really appealing ability. > > Here's someone retro fitting old Catalina 30s... > he has some interesting youtube videos, also. > http://www.propulsionmarine.com/electric/5kw > > Thanks > Ken > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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] | 25957|25950|2011-06-20 00:12:33|brentswain38|Re: electric motors?|Only two civilizations in history have survived beyond a set period of time . China and Egypt. Both had their land and food producing capability constantly replenished , Egypt by the flooding of the Nile and China by the flooding of the Yangtze. Egypt has dammed the Nile, the Med is eating away at the delta, and food production is rapidly declining. Now they can't take it down, because the reservoir is filled with silt, and they cant use it for drought control, because there is far less water above the silt. China has built the three Gorges dam which, will cause the same problems, while they plan even bigger dams. China's agricultural production is dropping ten percent a year, due to pollution. That's 50% in five years, while they talk about relaxing population control, for economic reasons. Too many people , period. Expect a huge drop in population, by starvation in the next ten years. Dams, etc are a temporary fix , only. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 06:52:15PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > I get a laugh out of environmentalists talking about the "Clean " electric vehicle alternative that the Chinese are building. > > Where does the bulk of Chinese electricity come from? Coal fired generators! > > Where does most of US electricity come from?Coal fired generators! > > What do you plug your "Clean" electric vehicle into for recharging? A coal burning source of power! > > Some "Clean" solution! > > Not that this is any saving grace, but the Chinese are actually doing a > lot better than the US on that score: they've built the world's largest > hydroelectric dam (Three Gorges), and they also have the Jinsha River > complex; that's almost 100,000 MW just from those alone, and they're > building more. Us, we're still burning coal and oil for almost all our > power, and our politicians are sneering at proposals like the Pickens > Plan (wind generators in the wind corridor; would have been 4,000 MW > from Texas alone...) By the way, why is there a hollow echo where our > economy used to be? > > Rah, rah. Go, us. [sigh] > > > 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 > | 25958|25950|2011-06-20 00:18:18|brentswain38|Re: electric motors?|It has been found in tank testings, that towing a spining 14 inch prop has the same drag as towing a 14 inch diameter bucket. When there is enough wind to sail fast enough to generate 2 amps with your prop, there is enough to generate 4 amps with a wind generator,double that with 2 wind generators, one on each quarter, without the drag. That is why I gave up on the towing generator concept. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Long wrote: > > Hi > > Yeah, being able to recharge from the prop spinning while under sail impresses me. > On that one guy's video he was generate 2 amps of regen power while sailing with a good wind. > > The other thought I had regarding electric motors, is I understand they have high torque at low RPM. And can therefore use a larger diameter prop. > So I was wondering how that would affect these designs, with the rudder and skeg? > I guess it could be fashioned to use a larger prop? > > Domestic electric power being generated with coal kind of stinks... I read it was around 30% efficient. and eventually it will all be mined away. > > I haven't priced the batteries but I understand those are pricey, especially having enough to provide enough amp-hours for all day motoring, if necessary. when I park my truck in the winter, I need to plug in an electric cord to be able to start it in the morning- old 7.3L powerstroke. all motors seem to need some extra TLC in extreme environments. > > thanks > > Kenneth Long > > --- On Sun, 6/19/11, David Frantz wrote: > > From: David Frantz > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] electric motors? > To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" > Cc: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com" > Date: Sunday, June 19, 2011, 8:14 PM > > > > > > > >   > > > > > > > > > > Having worked in industry for years I can say properly sized electric motors are fantastic. They run for years with no problem. The problem in a boat or automobile for that matter is where do you get power. Batteries are only good for short bursts and fuel cells are not exactly plug and play. Thus you have to consider carefully how you expect to use the motors and recharge the batteries. > > > > I suppose the only good thing about batteries is that they can be recharged at sea. If you run out of diesel your motor is no good. > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > On Jun 19, 2011, at 9:17 AM, kelong_2000 wrote: > > > > > Wondering if any of these Origamiboats have been outfitted with an electric motor, instead of the traditional diesel? > > > > > > Seems like a nice combination... > > > > > > stumbled across this article of a 45-foot catamaran outfitted with two 10kw motors. > > > http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1837 > > > > > > Under sail, the motor acts as a generator, recharging the batteries. > > > I thought this was a really appealing ability. > > > > > > Here's someone retro fitting old Catalina 30s... > > > he has some interesting youtube videos, also. > > > http://www.propulsionmarine.com/electric/5kw > > > > > > Thanks > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > 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] > | 25959|25950|2011-06-20 05:40:06|"hanermo" - CNC 6-axis Designs|Re: electric motors?|> stumbled across this article of a 45-foot catamaran outfitted with two > 10kw motors. > http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1837 > Sure, small(ish) electric motors can move a boat. The problem is storing the energy (not generating it). To motor for one day, say 6 hours, with 2 x 10 kW motors, with todays best li-ion batteries, would take about 1000 kg of batteries. At around 40.000 $ for the batteries, it is economically unfeasible. The feasible range, today, for electric drive, with say 6-8 40 kg batteries, is about 30-40 miles. > Under sail, the motor acts as a generator, recharging the batteries. > I thought this was a really appealing ability. > This has been proven NOT to work (well enough, in the real world). In that many tries exist, but not one person has a proven, real track record of being able to actually generate meaningful amounts of power/electricity. As Brent said wind generators, or much better, solar panels, will provide more power easier. > Here's someone retro fitting old Catalina 30s... > he has some interesting youtube videos, also. > http://www.propulsionmarine.com/electric/5kw > > Thanks > Ken > Electric propulsion is a great idea, technically easy, cheap and reliable, and is likely to become reality about 5-10 years down the line. Storing the electricity is the only problem. Battery storage efficiencies increase about 20-40% year/year currently. IE at about the same price and mass, current generation batteries each year have about 20-40% more energy storage capacity. A this rate, in between 5-10 years the power storage density/mass will be good enough for leisure boating. The 20% year/year means every 4 years the energy storage capacity doubles. So in ten years that double x double x 120% x 120% = = 6 times what we have today. 6 x 30 (-40 miles range) = 180 miles, which is plenty. Actually half that is plenty, for most usage. The electric vehicle industry pushes this battery development, as does the electronics industry. The evworld article is a cleverly written piece of self-praising propaganda. It implies that the solar cells can cook, run radios, run the fridge, power the boat and run the radar, 24x7. This is simply not true. What they actually say, is that they have enough storage capacity, 40 kWhours, to do all these things (for a short while). What they dont say is how much solar cell capacity they do have. Likewise, no details re: power generating capacity. It is likely that they can run radios, but almost certainly not radar and fridges, 24x7. In any case, the power pack is very expensive. Thay say 8% of boat cost, assuming a 500k$ boat (probable), thats 40.000$ for the battery. Also, like a lot of (biased) articles, thay dont admit the compromises they did to get a lower resistance, ie more efficient boat. It looks like the hulls are only about 110 cm wide, only, which makes them very small, uncomfortable, with very little usable space. Also, at only 6.400 kg displacement, they are not going to be heavily constructed and strong. So, they sell very expensive boats, with very little usable space, and the total construction cannot be very strong (ie for cruising). It is a well known fact that cruising boats need to be strong, stout and simple. They speak of divinycell foam cored construction, in a very, very lightweight boat. Note that the battery is heavy, thus the rest of the construction has to be really, really light. I suspect that the 40 KW/hr battery is not included in the 6800 kg total weight. They have several compromises, all poor choices, imo. Dyneema is very expensive (but very good). Carbon fiber is very expensive and a poor choice as point loads destroy it. Repairs are impossible. Carbon fiber cannot be adequately structurally repaired (must be cast as a whole). Very slim hulls .. no space. Cannot carry load, because of very small area. Complex, retractable sail drives- very expensive, little experience, fragile. Very expensive battery. I don´t doubt that the electric motors work well, but this is one of those "looks good but isn´t", where there just is little value in the total package. I don´t see it as a good cruising boat. No load carrying ability. No storage space. Fragile, complex, expensive parts and systems. No space ! Not strong enough for cruising. Expensive. So what is it good for ? I am sure that it can sail fast, and makes a great vacation tool for a week or two. At maybe half a mil to a mil, I just don´t see it. Please note that all of these reservation could be engineered away, if better cheaper batteries were available and the boat was made for real cruising. It is not that their engineering is poor, it´s that they are selling vapourware (re: green nonsense). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25960|25950|2011-06-20 07:23:47|Ben Okopnik|Re: electric motors?|On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:40:55AM +0200, hanermo - CNC 6-axis Designs wrote: > > To motor for one day, say 6 hours, with 2 x 10 kW motors, with todays > best li-ion batteries, would take about 1000 kg of batteries. > At around 40.000 $ for the batteries, it is economically unfeasible. > The feasible range, today, for electric drive, with say 6-8 40 kg > batteries, is about 30-40 miles. Which works fine, by the way, if you're sailing most of the time and just using the motor to get in and out of harbors. A live-aboard friend of mine in the VIs has his boat set up with an electric rig, and it works fine for his purposes (including motoring for 12 hours, powered by his Honda generator, when his mast went over the side.) http://boatbits.blogspot.com/search/label/Electric%20propulsion Excellent analysis overall - thank you! - although I think that your estimate of 20-40% efficiency increase per year is _very_ optimistic. I'd love to be proven wrong, though. :) 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| 25961|25961|2011-06-20 10:25:56|SHANE ROTHWELL|Electric motors|Ben wrote: Not that this is any saving grace, but the Chinese are actually doing a lot better than the US on that score: they've built the world's largest hydroelectric dam (Three Gorges), and they also have the Jinsha River complex; that's almost 100,000 MW just from those alone, and they're building more. Us, we're still burning coal and oil for almost all our power, and our politicians are sneering at proposals like the Pickens Plan (wind generators in the wind corridor; would have been 4,000 MW from Texas alone...) By the way, why is there a hollow echo where our economy used to be? Rah, rah. Go, us. [sigh] The Chinese "comunist" government finally gave in to reality week before last & publicly admitted  that the three gorges dam project was a total falure environmentally, financially and socially. It was all over the propoganda. They are now, very publicly, looking at how to dismantle them Dams have about a 100 year productive life as they silt up at a rate of about 1% per year. Obviously Ben you have never seen neon colored creeks or been in a factory in China, Taiwan, Korea, they are all an environmental nitemare with absolutely everyone clamoring for MORE. Might be boom times now, but wait a bit. The hollow echo is by design. Exactly per design.  BOOM (sucker em all in) BUST (banksters take the bloody lot) BOOM..... (repeat). If you look at history, the cycle repeats "itself" every 60 years or so, very consistantly ever since we shifted fron an agrarian economy to a financial economy about 350 years ago just before the industrial revolution & the bloody bankster skum learned just how profitable war is. But it's really not a long term problem for the vast majority of the worlds population, they wont' be around for long thanks to the banksters starving them out, the american led war machine (of which Canada is now most shamefully fully, subserviently involved) and the declining food production capacity that Brent mentioned, due of course to the insanity of dumping chemicals specifically designed to kill on our food (Duh!) & the obvious reprocussions of that, destruction of the environment on which we depend for life. Stock up on fishing gear now & maybe a few veggies groing in the main cabin.... And who is driving all this insanity for their own benefit? A very small group....? acouple of hundred "people" that call themselves "the Bilderberg group"| 25962|25950|2011-06-20 15:30:24|Paul Wilson|Re: electric motors?|The spinning 14 inch prop will actually have more drag than the 14 inch bucket depending on the speed you are going. Vortexes are generated by the blade tips creating induced drag. This can be significant and a large source of drag in airplanes (both wings and props) as the following shows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_vortices I believe Practical Sailor did a test years ago and proved that at certain speeds, a freewheeling prop had much more drag under sail than a prop that was braked, for this reason. Cheers, Paul On 6/20/2011 4:18 PM, brentswain38 wrote: > > It has been found in tank testings, that towing a spining 14 inch prop > has the same drag as towing a 14 inch diameter bucket. When there is > enough wind to sail fast enough to generate 2 amps with your prop, > there is enough to generate 4 amps with a wind generator,double that > with 2 wind generators, one on each quarter, without the drag. That is > why I gave up on the towing generator concept. > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > , Kenneth Long > wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > Yeah, being able to recharge from the prop spinning while under sail > impresses me. > > On that one guy's video he was generate 2 amps of regen power while > sailing with a good wind. > > > > The other thought I had regarding electric motors, is I understand > they have high torque at low RPM. And can therefore use a larger > diameter prop.. > > So I was wondering how that would affect these designs, with the > rudder and skeg? > > I guess it could be fashioned to use a larger prop? > > > > Domestic electric power being generated with coal kind of stinks... > I read it was around 30% efficient. and eventually it will all be > mined away. > > > > > I haven't priced the batteries but I understand those are pricey, > especially having enough to provide enough amp-hours for all day > motoring, if necessary. when I park my truck in the winter, I need to > plug in an electric cord to be able to start it in the morning- old > 7.3L powerstroke. all motors seem to need some extra TLC in extreme > environments. > > > > thanks > > > > Kenneth Long > > > > --- On Sun, 6/19/11, David Frantz wrote: > > > > From: David Frantz > > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] electric motors? > > To: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > " > > > Cc: "origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > " > > > Date: Sunday, June 19, 2011, 8:14 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having worked in industry for years I can say properly sized > electric motors are fantastic. They run for years with no problem. The > problem in a boat or automobile for that matter is where do you get > power. Batteries are only good for short bursts and fuel cells are not > exactly plug and play. Thus you have to consider carefully how you > expect to use the motors and recharge the batteries. > > > > > > > > I suppose the only good thing about batteries is that they can be > recharged at sea. If you run out of diesel your motor is no good. > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 2011, at 9:17 AM, kelong_2000 wrote: > > > > > > > > > Wondering if any of these Origamiboats have been outfitted with an > electric motor, instead of the traditional diesel? > > > > > > > > > > Seems like a nice combination... > > > > > > > > > > stumbled across this article of a 45-foot catamaran outfitted with > two 10kw motors. > > > > > http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1837 > > > > > > > > > > Under sail, the motor acts as a generator, recharging the batteries. > > > > > I thought this was a really appealing ability. > > > > > > > > > > Here's someone retro fitting old Catalina 30s... > > > > > he has some interesting youtube videos, also. > > > > > http://www.propulsionmarine.com/electric/5kw > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1513/3714 - Release Date: 06/19/11 > | 25963|25950|2011-06-20 16:13:28|wild_explorer|Re: electric motors?|It was a very good discussion in this group about possibility of generating electricity by spinning boat's prop. Conclusion - it has very low efficiency and not worth of troubles. It is more economical to use wind generators and solar panels. Another problem for electrical drive are batteries. Even if you can get enough initial batteries' capacity to run your electric motor, capacity will decline pretty fast. New types of batteries claimed to have "no memory effect", but they still lose capacity and have limited number of charge-discharge cycles and expensive. Just ask yourself why hybrid cars do not have plug-in option and making one will void car's battery warranty. Regular car starter batteries are not a good choice. You need to have "deep discharge batteries" similar used on electric carts. It is hard to find such type of batteries which are tall an narrow (to use on a boat). "Hybrid systems" - diesel generator, solar/wind generators may be better option. "Diesel generator - electric motor" will have about 10-20% loses, but you have an option to recharge batteries from wind/solar if you ran out of fuel. The question is "Is it worth of troubles?" to go for more complex solution? Just think how would you solve this problem 300 years ago ;))| 25964|25964|2011-06-20 16:25:27|Denis Buggy|Re: el current discussion|----- Original Message ----- From: brentswain38 . China's agricultural production is dropping ten percent a year, due to pollution. That's 50% in five years, while they talk about relaxing population control, for economic reasons. Too many people , period. Expect a huge drop in population, by starvation in the next ten years. Dams, etc are a temporary fix , only. --- In dear Brent there are a few documentaries on google dealing with fractional intrest --- this is avery simple concept however I along with the rest of us SHEEPLE did not understand it-- if you apply it to your statement that agriculture is dropping 10% per year ---it is a lot more than 50%in 5 years . this system of fractional intrest is what is killing us and each Greek owes 38000-00 euros each Irish person 28000-00 each American 360000-00 YES 360,000-00 EACH MAN WOMAN OR CHILD . the basic game is give a loan from the private co known as the federal reserve to the government and give them then permission to print their own money at their own cost in exchange for other worthless pieces of paper called bonds and if you charge 7% intrest per annum you will double your money in 10 short years YES 10 YEARS IS ALL IT TAKES TO EARN 100% AT 7% PER ANNUM -- WE ARE ALL FUCKED BY BYTHE SAME PEOPLE . watch the following great documentaries FREE ON GOOGLE THE MONEY MASTERS OIL SMOKE AND MIRRORS ZEITGEIST MOVING FORWARD it goes some way to explain how they did it to us .regards denis buggy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25965|25950|2011-06-20 16:52:10|Ben Okopnik|Re: electric motors?|On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 08:12:48PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > Another problem for electrical drive are batteries. Even if you can get enough initial batteries' capacity to run your electric motor, capacity will decline pretty fast. New types of batteries claimed to have "no memory effect", but they still lose capacity and have limited number of charge-discharge cycles and expensive. Just ask yourself why hybrid cars do not have plug-in option and making one will void car's battery warranty. Not quite true; I've seen a prototype on the street in the US (quite a number of them set to be produced next year), and there are plenty of them already driving around India and Singapore. http://www.hybridcars.com/plug-in-hybrid-cars Also, as far as I'm aware, you _cannot_ void the warranty on a part unless it has itself been modified - and adding a plug-in option does not modify the batteries. In fact, Toyota's Motor Sales Group Vice President (for one) has come out with a very supportive statement for plug-in mods on their "Open Road" blog. > Regular car starter batteries are not a good choice. You need to have "deep discharge batteries" similar used on electric carts. It is hard to find such type of batteries which are tall an narrow (to use on a boat). That's incorrect, I'm afraid. The standard Trojan golf cart batteries (and the dozens of their knock-off competitors) are tall and narrow; so are most forklift batteries. In fact, if I ever did go with an electric option on a boat, I'd buy a used forklift battery: the cost is incredibly low in comparison to the number of deep discharge batteries you'd need to buy, and the forklift industry's "below usable capacity" rating is *so* high that even a battery that's considered useless for forklifts will provide what seems like an infinite amount of storage for a boat. > "Hybrid systems" - diesel generator, solar/wind generators may be better option. "Diesel generator - electric motor" will have about 10-20% loses, but you have an option to recharge batteries from wind/solar if you ran out of fuel. The question is "Is it worth of troubles?" to go for more complex solution? My friend Bob just uses his Honda 2000 generator. Given that his motor draws 20A (@70V, if I recall correctly) at cruise, and 60A at max speed, he can easily keep it powered while burning about 1 quart per hour. > Just think how would you solve this problem 300 years ago ;)) Yeah, powering your computer and your radar system was rather tough back then. :) 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| 25966|25950|2011-06-20 17:52:50|wild_explorer|Re: electric motors?|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > Regular car starter batteries are not a good choice. You need to have "deep discharge batteries" similar used on electric carts. It is hard to find such type of batteries which are tall an narrow (to use on a boat). > > That's incorrect, I'm afraid. The standard Trojan golf cart batteries > (and the dozens of their knock-off competitors) are tall and narrow; so > are most forklift batteries. In fact, if I ever did go with an electric > option on a boat, I'd buy a used forklift battery: the cost is > incredibly low in comparison to the number of deep discharge batteries > you'd need to buy, and the forklift industry's "below usable capacity" > rating is *so* high that even a battery that's considered useless for > forklifts will provide what seems like an infinite amount of storage for > a boat. Under TALL batteries I mean 5-10 times of other dimensions. As I see Trojan and forklift batteries are NOT tall. May be some models are... What models are you referring to? Forklift and golf cart batteries ARE deep discharge batteries. > > > "Hybrid systems" - diesel generator, solar/wind generators may be better option. "Diesel generator - electric motor" will have about 10-20% loses, but you have an option to recharge batteries from wind/solar if you ran out of fuel. The question is "Is it worth of troubles?" to go for more complex solution? > > My friend Bob just uses his Honda 2000 generator. Given that his motor > draws 20A (@70V, if I recall correctly) at cruise, and 60A at max speed, > he can easily keep it powered while burning about 1 quart per hour. > As I see, H2000 is 2kW (~17A, 120V) max, 1.6kW (~13A, 120V) rated generator, how is it possible to squeeze 60A@70V= 4.2 kW from it?| 25967|25950|2011-06-20 18:11:39|Ben Okopnik|Re: electric motors?|On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 09:36:51PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > Regular car starter batteries are not a good choice. You need to have "deep discharge batteries" similar used on electric carts. It is hard to find such type of batteries which are tall an narrow (to use on a boat). > > > > That's incorrect, I'm afraid. The standard Trojan golf cart batteries > > (and the dozens of their knock-off competitors) are tall and narrow; so > > are most forklift batteries. In fact, if I ever did go with an electric > > option on a boat, I'd buy a used forklift battery: the cost is > > incredibly low in comparison to the number of deep discharge batteries > > you'd need to buy, and the forklift industry's "below usable capacity" > > rating is *so* high that even a battery that's considered useless for > > forklifts will provide what seems like an infinite amount of storage for > > a boat. > > Under TALL batteries I mean 5-10 times of other dimensions. Um... even AA batteries don't fit those proportions. Are you thinking of the uranium fuel rods in a nuclear power plant, by any chance? :) > As I see Trojan and forklift batteries are NOT tall. May be some models are... What models are you referring to? The standard T-125s. They are taller than they are wide - which is the definition of "tall" that I'm using, given that every other type of car battery I know of is wider than it is tall. > Forklift and golf cart batteries ARE deep discharge batteries. Yes. Did I say something different? > > My friend Bob just uses his Honda 2000 generator. Given that his motor > > draws 20A (@70V, if I recall correctly) at cruise, and 60A at max speed, > > he can easily keep it powered while burning about 1 quart per hour. > > As I see, H2000 is 2kW (~17A, 120V) max, 1.6kW (~13A, 120V) rated generator, how is it possible to squeeze 60A@70V= 4.2 kW from it? Did I say, anywhere in the above, that he was running at max speed? At cruise speed, which I explicitly cited above - i.e., 20A @ 70V - that's 1.4kW, easily handled within the Honda's specs. The runtime at a somewhat greater load (1.5kW) is specified as 4.25 hours, with 1.1 gallons of fuel - i.e., about 1 qt / hour. Bob's entire setup, incidentally, cost him about $1k to build. And if the motor ever fails, it's somewhere around $200 to replace it. Compare that to the average high-pressure fuel pump, or even an injector rebuild... and consider that his engine room is squeaky clean and is going to stay that way - no oil anywhere on the boat. I'm kinda jealous, actually. :) 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| 25968|25950|2011-06-20 18:29:02|Aaron|Re: electric motors?|I thought about it for the last 3 years how I could put what type of battery how many and where. The cost will easily get over 10 thousand US dollars just to get hull speed for 1 hour. In a steel hull the weight is the killer.    Their are several people in the electric boat group that have the 28 to 30 foot glass boats that are very happy with electric. Go over to that group and get some education on electric boats. Aaron ________________________________ From: Ben Okopnik To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, June 20, 2011 2:11:25 PM Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors?   On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 09:36:51PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > Regular car starter batteries are not a good choice. You need to have "deep >discharge batteries" similar used on electric carts. It is hard to find such >type of batteries which are tall an narrow (to use on a boat). > > > > That's incorrect, I'm afraid. The standard Trojan golf cart batteries > > (and the dozens of their knock-off competitors) are tall and narrow; so > > are most forklift batteries. In fact, if I ever did go with an electric > > option on a boat, I'd buy a used forklift battery: the cost is > > incredibly low in comparison to the number of deep discharge batteries > > you'd need to buy, and the forklift industry's "below usable capacity" > > rating is *so* high that even a battery that's considered useless for > > forklifts will provide what seems like an infinite amount of storage for > > a boat. > > Under TALL batteries I mean 5-10 times of other dimensions. Um... even AA batteries don't fit those proportions. Are you thinking of the uranium fuel rods in a nuclear power plant, by any chance? :) > As I see Trojan and forklift batteries are NOT tall. May be some models are... >What models are you referring to? The standard T-125s. They are taller than they are wide - which is the definition of "tall" that I'm using, given that every other type of car battery I know of is wider than it is tall. > Forklift and golf cart batteries ARE deep discharge batteries. Yes. Did I say something different? > > My friend Bob just uses his Honda 2000 generator. Given that his motor > > draws 20A (@70V, if I recall correctly) at cruise, and 60A at max speed, > > he can easily keep it powered while burning about 1 quart per hour. > > As I see, H2000 is 2kW (~17A, 120V) max, 1.6kW (~13A, 120V) rated generator, >how is it possible to squeeze 60A@70V= 4.2 kW from it? > Did I say, anywhere in the above, that he was running at max speed? At cruise speed, which I explicitly cited above - i.e., 20A @ 70V - that's 1.4kW, easily handled within the Honda's specs. The runtime at a somewhat greater load (1.5kW) is specified as 4.25 hours, with 1.1 gallons of fuel - i.e., about 1 qt / hour. Bob's entire setup, incidentally, cost him about $1k to build. And if the motor ever fails, it's somewhere around $200 to replace it. Compare that to the average high-pressure fuel pump, or even an injector rebuild... and consider that his engine room is squeaky clean and is going to stay that way - no oil anywhere on the boat. I'm kinda jealous, actually. :) 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] | 25969|25950|2011-06-20 19:10:06|William Munger|Re: electric motors?|>and consider that his engine room is squeaky clean and is >going to stay that way - no oil anywhere on the boat. I'm kinda jealous, >actually. :) I would think that you would be able to reduce your insurance (if you have it) since there is no chance of you causing an oil spill... William| 25970|25950|2011-06-20 19:35:17|Ben Okopnik|Re: electric motors?|On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 03:29:00PM -0700, Aaron wrote: > I thought about it for the last 3 years how I could put what type of battery how > many and where. The cost will easily get over 10 thousand US dollars just to get > hull speed for 1 hour. Yikes... > In a steel hull the weight is the killer. > >    Their are several people in the electric boat group that have the 28 to 30 > foot glass boats that are very happy with electric. Go over to that group and > get some education on electric boats. I think I will, when I get a little extra time. I know quite a bit about each one, but not about both together. :) Thanks for the recommendation. 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| 25971|25950|2011-06-20 23:50:58|Darren Bos|Re: electric motors?|Just for interest. Many, many years ago in undergrad I was drinking beer with some engineering friends and discussing hybrid car options when such things were only seen in university competitions, rather than your neighbors driveway. One of the design criteria was that the cars in the hybrid competitions could not plug in. The reason was not battery cycling or for the sake of the competition or any other engineering reason. The reason was that marketing studies had suggested that consumers were adverse to the idea of having to plug in a car. Thus the engineering competitions that laid much of the groundwork for the current generation of hybrid cars were all built up around the idea that you could not plug the car in. Darren At 01:12 PM 20/06/2011, you wrote: > > >It was a very good discussion in this group >about possibility of generating electricity by >spinning boat's prop. Conclusion - it has very >low efficiency and not worth of troubles. It is >more economical to use wind generators and solar panels. > >Another problem for electrical drive are >batteries. Even if you can get enough initial >batteries' capacity to run your electric motor, >capacity will decline pretty fast. New types of >batteries claimed to have "no memory effect", >but they still lose capacity and have limited >number of charge-discharge cycles and expensive. >Just ask yourself why hybrid cars do not have >plug-in option and making one will void car's battery warranty. > >Regular car starter batteries are not a good >choice. You need to have "deep discharge >batteries" similar used on electric carts. It is >hard to find such type of batteries which are >tall an narrow (to use on a boat). > >"Hybrid systems" - diesel generator, solar/wind >generators may be better option. "Diesel >generator - electric motor" will have about >10-20% loses, but you have an option to recharge >batteries from wind/solar if you ran out of >fuel. The question is "Is it worth of troubles?" >to go for more complex solution? > >Just think how would you solve this problem 300 years ago ;)) > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25972|25950|2011-06-21 00:54:30|Giuseppe Bergman|Re: electric motors?|Just to show what other people did (seems like throwing a huge amount of money upon just beginning research, though.) http://www.barbara-ann.net/propulsion.html I remember this site to be online already some years, so some of their installations may have dropped down in price with a growing market probably. cheers G_B Am 21.06.2011 um 05:50 schrieb Darren Bos: > Just for interest. Many, many years ago in > undergrad I was drinking beer with some > engineering friends and discussing hybrid car > options when such things were only seen in > university competitions, rather than your > neighbors driveway. One of the design criteria > was that the cars in the hybrid competitions > could not plug in. The reason was not battery > cycling or for the sake of the competition or any > other engineering reason. The reason was that > marketing studies had suggested that consumers > were adverse to the idea of having to plug in a > car. Thus the engineering competitions that laid > much of the groundwork for the current generation > of hybrid cars were all built up around the idea > that you could not plug the car in. > > Darren > > At 01:12 PM 20/06/2011, you wrote: > > > > > >It was a very good discussion in this group > >about possibility of generating electricity by > >spinning boat's prop. Conclusion - it has very > >low efficiency and not worth of troubles. It is > >more economical to use wind generators and solar panels. > > > >Another problem for electrical drive are > >batteries. Even if you can get enough initial > >batteries' capacity to run your electric motor, > >capacity will decline pretty fast. New types of > >batteries claimed to have "no memory effect", > >but they still lose capacity and have limited > >number of charge-discharge cycles and expensive. > >Just ask yourself why hybrid cars do not have > >plug-in option and making one will void car's battery warranty. > > > >Regular car starter batteries are not a good > >choice. You need to have "deep discharge > >batteries" similar used on electric carts. It is > >hard to find such type of batteries which are > >tall an narrow (to use on a boat). > > > >"Hybrid systems" - diesel generator, solar/wind > >generators may be better option. "Diesel > >generator - electric motor" will have about > >10-20% loses, but you have an option to recharge > >batteries from wind/solar if you ran out of > >fuel. The question is "Is it worth of troubles?" > >to go for more complex solution? > > > >Just think how would you solve this problem 300 years ago ;)) > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25973|25950|2011-06-21 01:09:35|Paul Wilson|Re: electric motors?|Depending on the governments own data, about 45 percent of the electricity in the USA comes from over 100 coal fired power plants. Others say up to 57 percent. Imagine a future with 100,000 hybrid vehicles or more in a large city. Everyone of them or even a large part of them arriving home after commuting to work and plugging in to their home. The power surge to the coal fired power plants would be unbelievable. The coal fired power plant would spew out more smoke from it's coal fired electricity to power the "clean, no air pollution" vehicle..... Conclusion- In many areas of the United States, having an electric vehicle that plugs in to a wall is like having a coal powered vehicle. Until the power plants and infrastructure allow for clean electricity and a grid that can handle the peak loads, plug-in electric vehicles are a dumb idea. The air would be much cleaner and everyone would be much better off simply switching to natural gas. If there was true leadership in government, the power plants would be switching over now and there would be incentives for car filling stations and infrastructure rather than mucking about with expensive electric vehicles that won't work for the masses. The government would rather listen to the coal lobbyists and their "clean coal" BS. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickens_plan Rant over.... Cheers, Paul| 25974|25950|2011-06-21 07:28:39|Ben Okopnik|Re: electric motors?|On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 05:09:49PM +1200, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Conclusion- In many areas of the United States, having an electric > vehicle that plugs in to a wall is like having a coal powered vehicle. It is, and you're right - the entire power cycle, from initial raw material to the final output (including the waste heat, etc.) needs to be examined for a fair comparison - but some arguments can definitely be made here for an overall reduction in energy consumption: producing power in bulk is much more efficient than "retail", eliminating the whole oil search/drilling/collection/extraction/refining/distribution system would be a huge energy saving of its own, a large-scale system like the US electric grid is amenable to large-scale modification (i.e., the Pickens Plan, adding solar arrays, etc.) that can't be done on the individual scale, etc. In other words, it would indeed be an improvement - but given the current state of the US infrastructure overall, it would require a much greater change than most of the EV proponents realize, or are willing to admit to realizing, to make a real difference. > The air would be much cleaner and everyone would be much > better off simply switching to natural gas. If there was true > leadership in government, the power plants would be switching over now > and there would be incentives for car filling stations and > infrastructure rather than mucking about with expensive electric > vehicles that won't work for the masses. The government would rather > listen to the coal lobbyists and their "clean coal" BS. Actually, there's quite a lot of CNG use out there; a large number of commercial truck fleets, as well as plain old cars have quietly converted (and if you want incentives, an 80 cu.ft. CNG tank for your BBQ costs about 25 *cents* to fill to 3000psi - as opposed to the $20 for a bottle of unpressurized propane.) "Quietly" because... [sigh] it's been made into a security issue by the DHS. It seems that advertising CNG - and thus, its storage and access points - would help The Big Bad Terrorists come blow us up. *Now* we know where all the unsuccessful screen writers went after trying (and failing miserably) in Hollywood... 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| 25975|25950|2011-06-21 10:06:37|Kenneth Long|Re: electric motors?|interesting experiment someone did - http://www.catamaransite.com/propeller_drag_test.html the fork lift batteries are interesting. lots of amp-hours. they weigh in at a 2,000 lbs. too bad they are not in the shape of a keel. Kenneth Long| 25976|25950|2011-06-21 11:51:51|Darren Bos|Re: electric motors?|Depends how you look at it. The average old fridge sitting in the garage to keep a case of beer cool consumes in the neighborhood of 1350 kWh/yr. A Tesla Roadster electric car consumes 13.5 kWh/100km. So, unplug the extra fridge and you can drive the car for a year with no net increase in pollution. Electric cars can also be charged during non-peak hours so there isn't a need to rebuild the distribution grid. In this case, when you are looking at vehicle system efficiency you have to include the old fridge in the garage, the incandescent light bulb, standby power consumption etc..... Coal is bad, but so is hydroelectric (methane production and land loss) and nuclear, windpower kills migratory birds and solar is only a small part of the solution so far. The only system that is currently practical is conservation to reduce power usage. Unfortunately, it requires responsible and competent consumers that are currently in short supply. If everyone lived like they were on a sailboat most of our immediate problems would be solved. Darren At 10:09 PM 20/06/2011, Paul Wilson wrote: > > >Depending on the governments own data, about 45 percent of the >electricity in the USA comes from over 100 coal fired power plants. >Others say up to 57 percent. Imagine a future with 100,000 hybrid >vehicles or more in a large city. Everyone of them or even a large part >of them arriving home after commuting to work and plugging in to their >home. The power surge to the coal fired power plants would be >unbelievable. The coal fired power plant would spew out more smoke from >it's coal fired electricity to power the "clean, no air pollution" >vehicle..... > >Conclusion- In many areas of the United States, having an electric >vehicle that plugs in to a wall is like having a coal powered vehicle. > >Until the power plants and infrastructure allow for clean electricity >and a grid that can handle the peak loads, plug-in electric vehicles are >a dumb idea. The air would be much cleaner and everyone would be much >better off simply switching to natural gas. If there was true >leadership in government, the power plants would be switching over now >and there would be incentives for car filling stations and >infrastructure rather than mucking about with expensive electric >vehicles that won't work for the masses. The government would rather >listen to the coal lobbyists and their "clean coal" BS. > >See >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickens_plan > >Rant over.... > >Cheers, Paul > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25977|25950|2011-06-21 12:06:05|Barney Treadway|Re: electric motors?|As much as I hate coal, having idling cars stop puking out greenhouse gasses sounds like a winner. Thats the best reason for electric, its WAY more efficient for how many people use their cars. On 6/21/2011 9:51 AM, Darren Bos wrote: > > Depends how you look at it. The average old > fridge sitting in the garage to keep a case of > beer cool consumes in the neighborhood of 1350 > kWh/yr. A Tesla Roadster electric car consumes > 13.5 kWh/100km. So, unplug the extra fridge and > you can drive the car for a year with no net > increase in pollution. Electric cars can also be > charged during non-peak hours so there isn't a > need to rebuild the distribution grid. In this > case, when you are looking at vehicle system > efficiency you have to include the old fridge in > the garage, the incandescent light bulb, standby power consumption > etc..... > > Coal is bad, but so is hydroelectric (methane > production and land loss) and nuclear, windpower > kills migratory birds and solar is only a small > part of the solution so far. The only system > that is currently practical is conservation to > reduce power usage. Unfortunately, it requires > responsible and competent consumers that are > currently in short supply. If everyone lived > like they were on a sailboat most of our immediate problems would be > solved. > > Darren > > At 10:09 PM 20/06/2011, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > > > >Depending on the governments own data, about 45 percent of the > >electricity in the USA comes from over 100 coal fired power plants. > >Others say up to 57 percent. Imagine a future with 100,000 hybrid > >vehicles or more in a large city. Everyone of them or even a large part > >of them arriving home after commuting to work and plugging in to their > >home. The power surge to the coal fired power plants would be > >unbelievable. The coal fired power plant would spew out more smoke from > >it's coal fired electricity to power the "clean, no air pollution" > >vehicle..... > > > >Conclusion- In many areas of the United States, having an electric > >vehicle that plugs in to a wall is like having a coal powered vehicle. > > > >Until the power plants and infrastructure allow for clean electricity > >and a grid that can handle the peak loads, plug-in electric vehicles are > >a dumb idea. The air would be much cleaner and everyone would be much > >better off simply switching to natural gas. If there was true > >leadership in government, the power plants would be switching over now > >and there would be incentives for car filling stations and > >infrastructure rather than mucking about with expensive electric > >vehicles that won't work for the masses. The government would rather > >listen to the coal lobbyists and their "clean coal" BS. > > > >See > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickens_plan > > > >Rant over.... > > > >Cheers, Paul > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > -- Barney Treadway www.ecomshare.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25978|25950|2011-06-21 12:09:38|wild_explorer|Re: electric motors?|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > Under TALL batteries I mean 5-10 times of other dimensions. > > Um... even AA batteries don't fit those proportions. Are you thinking of > the uranium fuel rods in a nuclear power plant, by any chance? :) > I was thinking about batteries used on submarines back in WW2 ;)). I suspect DIY builder cannot do much better than that ;) Flooded batteries are still most economical choice. And batteries need to be able to handle 30-40 deg heel of a sailboat without spills. Your friend's setup use only 1.5kW motor... which is 2HP. Just barely enough to get going ;) Ones I rented open boat about 10ft (for ocean coastline). Renting company even did not allow engine < 5HP on it because of wind and current in that area ;)) You can buy 2HP gasoline engine under $200 as well (comparable replacing cost as your friend's electric motor). P.S. Just clarifying that we are not talking about reasonable engine power for a boat (2-3HP per tonne of displacement) - but good enough to get in/out in calm weather. > 1.4kW, easily handled within the Honda's specs. The runtime at a > somewhat greater load (1.5kW) is specified as 4.25 hours, with 1.1 > gallons of fuel - i.e., about 1 qt / hour. > > Bob's entire setup, incidentally, cost him about $1k to build. And if > the motor ever fails, it's somewhere around $200 to replace it. Compare > that to the average high-pressure fuel pump, or even an injector > rebuild... and consider that his engine room is squeaky clean and is > going to stay that way - no oil anywhere on the boat. I'm kinda jealous, > actually. :) | 25979|25950|2011-06-21 12:15:34|mauro gonzaga|Re: electric motors?|OK Brent, I trust you. But....did you read what Kastenmarine write? http://www.kastenmarine.com/jasmine.htm ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 8:52 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors?   Victor went electric on a new 36. I don't think the batteries are advanced enough ,nor affordable enough at this point to make it practical in BC. In sunny latitudes,where the trade winds are strong enough to enable a wind generator to give lots of power from a wind generator, and solar panels work well, and reliable winds reduce the need for motoring ( Like the West Indies or Vanuatu) it may well be a practical option. I remember an old Finn in Nanaimo, who's alternator was long dead, and he depended on his wind generator and solar panels for power. He spent a whole month with a heavy overcast, and not a breath of wind, all to common here. Batteries don't like to lie uncharged for too long. If you go for day sails, and tie to a dock most of the time, it may be an alternative, but for full time cruising, it is just not practical here, yet. The Newcastle Island ferry in Nanaimo has an electric version, but they tie to a power source every nite. I get a laugh out of environmentalists talking about the "Clean " electric vehicle alternative that the Chinese are building. Where does the bulk of Chinese electricity come from? Coal fired generators! Where does most of US electricity come from?Coal fired generators! What do you plug your "Clean" electric vehicle into for recharging? A coal burning source of power! Some "Clean" solution! --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, j fisher wrote: > > there has been talk of it, but I have not heard of anyone who has done an > actual install. I do have some feedback from a cruising couple who bought > one on the lagoon 4300 (?) with the hybrid drive. they have now removed the > hybrid drive and replaced it with diesel only. On that system they found > that the electric only system had very short range and they were running the > engines anyway to provide enough electricity. It was cheaper and simpler to > just run a diesel if you were going to do any motoring. They do tend to > motor more that I would while cruising, but I found it interesting that they > spent the $$ to remove the hybrid system. > > > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:17 AM, kelong_2000 wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > Wondering if any of these Origamiboats have been outfitted with an electric > > motor, instead of the traditional diesel? > > > > Seems like a nice combination... > > > > stumbled across this article of a 45-foot catamaran outfitted with two 10kw > > motors. > > http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1837 > > > > Under sail, the motor acts as a generator, recharging the batteries. > > I thought this was a really appealing ability. > > > > Here's someone retro fitting old Catalina 30s... > > he has some interesting youtube videos, also. > > http://www.propulsionmarine.com/electric/5kw > > > > Thanks > > Ken > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25980|25950|2011-06-21 12:35:06|wild_explorer|Re: electric motors?|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > OK Brent, I trust you. But....did you read what Kastenmarine write? > http://www.kastenmarine.com/jasmine.htm > I do not see the PRICE of that motor on motor's manufacturer web-site. This is 144V DC motor which requires controller. All these hybrid solutions LOOKS good until you start counting how much it cost + possible complications. Good for some "concept" boat though.... Would be simpler to use hybrid systems as on an icebreakers - electric_generator - electric_motor. No batteries.| 25981|25950|2011-06-21 12:44:42|Matt Malone|Re: electric motors?|Yes, no oil, but you have acid instead. A different set of issues. Matt ----------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: wmunger@... Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:10:02 -0400 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors? >and consider that his engine room is squeaky clean and is >going to stay that way - no oil anywhere on the boat. I'm kinda jealous, >actually. :) I would think that you would be able to reduce your insurance (if you have it) since there is no chance of you causing an oil spill... William [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25982|25950|2011-06-21 12:51:54|rhko47|Re: electric motors?|originally posted Oct 7, 2008: I considered an electric drive system for the Swain 28 (scaled up 26) I am building, projected to displace 8400#, almost 4 long tons. Most people want 2-4 hp per ton; I am content with the formerly standard 1-2 hp per ton. An Etek motor at 36 volts can supply 6 hp. I've been reading Douglas Little's book Electric Boats. 6 hp would get me about 4.5 knots. (It would take 16.6 hp to reach hull speed, 6.5 knots.) At 4.5 knots I would go 108 NM in 24 hours, which would also be a good distance under sail. BUT, how much battery capacity would I need to go for even 4 hours? Turns out, at 36 volts, I would need 119 Amp hours per hp = 714. Six 6 volt golf cart batteries weigh 360# and cost at least $900. Their nominal capacity (when new) would be 1440Ah until flat. That means I could go for no more than an hour [30 min if recharging at 50% depletion, which significantly prolongs battery life] before mandatory recharge, which takes significantly longer than discharging them by running the electric drive. Only solution is to add more batteries, more weight, more cost, more volume. Lots more. If I wanted to motor for longer than my batteries' capacity, I would have to power the drive motor directly from a generator producing at least 6 x 750 watts/hp, which would require a 5000W genset, which uses an IC engine half again as powerful as the 6hp electric drive. If I need a >6 hp IC engine, why do I need in addition a generator head, a drive motor, a controller, tons of batteries and yards and yards of heavy copper cable, and a complex charging system? Oh, and by the way, I'd still need a 12 volt house battery with its own charging system, or a voltage converter. And although I could reverse electrically with yet another gizmo (reversing contactor), I might still need a reduction gear. It seems apparent that electric drive in its present state is best suited to very small vessels (smaller than mine) on rivers and small lakes, for short outings followed by extended spells of recharging from the grid rather than a genset. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "kelong_2000" wrote: > > Wondering if any of these Origamiboats have been outfitted with an electric motor, instead of the traditional diesel? > > Seems like a nice combination... > > stumbled across this article of a 45-foot catamaran outfitted with two 10kw motors. > http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1837 > > Under sail, the motor acts as a generator, recharging the batteries. > I thought this was a really appealing ability. > > Here's someone retro fitting old Catalina 30s... > he has some interesting youtube videos, also. > http://www.propulsionmarine.com/electric/5kw > > Thanks > Ken > | 25983|25950|2011-06-21 12:57:21|Matt Malone|Re: electric motors?|"Coal powered" electric cars... Yes, it is true the energy has to come from somewhere. However, with a plant that is stationary, the 65%-70% of the energy that comes out of the fuel, and is not turned into mechanical motion, that is instead wasted heat, can be used to heat buildings -- because the plant is stationary. Co-generation. If you take the same fuel and put it in a vehicle, 65-70% of the energy goes into the atmosphere, wasted. Secondly, there is no reason that a plant cannot be equally clean per unit of energy as a car, in fact, they could be cleaner, again, because they are stationary, and weight is not a factor. Yes, most cars burn gasoline, and power plants burn coal, and we are comparing apples and oranges: coal is dirtier than gasoline. But the plant is stationary, more could be done to clean the emissions so only CO2 is produced. All of this is driven by economics. Coal is cheap compared to gasoline. Why not switch the power plants to natural gas ? If there is natural gas available to run cars, then there is the same amount of natural gas available to generate electricity and charge cars, and at least the rest of the energy might be used for something. Nothing is stopping you from charging your electric car from your windmill or solar system. Matt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com From: opusnz@... Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:09:49 +1200 Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors? Depending on the governments own data, about 45 percent of the electricity in the USA comes from over 100 coal fired power plants. Others say up to 57 percent. Imagine a future with 100,000 hybrid vehicles or more in a large city. Everyone of them or even a large part of them arriving home after commuting to work and plugging in to their home. The power surge to the coal fired power plants would be unbelievable. The coal fired power plant would spew out more smoke from it's coal fired electricity to power the "clean, no air pollution" vehicle..... Conclusion- In many areas of the United States, having an electric vehicle that plugs in to a wall is like having a coal powered vehicle. Until the power plants and infrastructure allow for clean electricity and a grid that can handle the peak loads, plug-in electric vehicles are a dumb idea. The air would be much cleaner and everyone would be much better off simply switching to natural gas. If there was true leadership in government, the power plants would be switching over now and there would be incentives for car filling stations and infrastructure rather than mucking about with expensive electric vehicles that won't work for the masses. The government would rather listen to the coal lobbyists and their "clean coal" BS. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickens_plan Rant over.... Cheers, Paul [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25984|25950|2011-06-21 13:29:32|Ben Okopnik|Re: electric motors?|On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 04:09:31PM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > > > > > Under TALL batteries I mean 5-10 times of other dimensions. > > > > Um... even AA batteries don't fit those proportions. Are you thinking of > > the uranium fuel rods in a nuclear power plant, by any chance? :) > > > > I was thinking about batteries used on submarines back in WW2 ;)). I suspect DIY builder cannot do much better than that ;) Flooded batteries are still most economical choice. And batteries need to be able to handle 30-40 deg heel of a sailboat without spills. > > Your friend's setup use only 1.5kW motor... which is 2HP. Just barely enough to get going ;) You've miscalculated, I'm afraid. The motor draw varies based on the throttle setting; the fact that he's using 1.5kW does not mean that it's a 1.5kW motor. That "barely enough" pushes his 34' Cal at 2.9 knots with the throttle barely open (17 amp draw), but at WOT, it pulls 110 amps. At 48V, that's about 5.25kW - which, given the lack of losses inherent in a diesel power train and the available torque at the bottom, is similar to having a 20HP+ diesel. http://boatbits.blogspot.com/search/label/Electric%20propulsion?updated-max=2009-10-20T09%3A46%3A00-04%3A00&max-results=20 > You can buy 2HP gasoline engine under $200 as well (comparable replacing cost as your friend's electric motor). You've forgotten one minor detail. That gasoline engine? You've got to buy gasoline for it. Every single day that it runs. And that 2HP? If you think you're getting that to the water, I've got a bridge right here in New York that I'll be happy to sell you. :) > P.S. Just clarifying that we are not talking about reasonable engine power for a boat (2-3HP per tonne of displacement) - but good enough to get in/out in calm weather. Actually, we are. You've just miscalculated. 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| 25985|25950|2011-06-21 14:45:59|brentswain38|Re: electric motors?|Kasten Marine is totally full of shit when it mentions origami. They haven't read the book. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > OK Brent, I trust you. But....did you read what Kastenmarine write? > http://www.kastenmarine.com/jasmine.htm > > > > ________________________________ > From: brentswain38 > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 8:52 PM > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors? > > >   > Victor went electric on a new 36. I don't think the batteries are advanced enough ,nor affordable enough at this point to make it practical in BC. In sunny latitudes,where the trade winds are strong enough to enable a wind generator to give lots of power from a wind generator, and solar panels work well, and reliable winds reduce the need for motoring ( Like the West Indies or Vanuatu) it may well be a practical option. > I remember an old Finn in Nanaimo, who's alternator was long dead, and he depended on his wind generator and solar panels for power. He spent a whole month with a heavy overcast, and not a breath of wind, all to common here. Batteries don't like to lie uncharged for too long. If you go for day sails, and tie to a dock most of the time, it may be an alternative, but for full time cruising, it is just not practical here, yet. > The Newcastle Island ferry in Nanaimo has an electric version, but they tie to a power source every nite. > I get a laugh out of environmentalists talking about the "Clean " electric vehicle alternative that the Chinese are building. > Where does the bulk of Chinese electricity come from? Coal fired generators! > Where does most of US electricity come from?Coal fired generators! > What do you plug your "Clean" electric vehicle into for recharging? A coal burning source of power! > Some "Clean" solution! > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, j fisher wrote: > > > > there has been talk of it, but I have not heard of anyone who has done an > > actual install. I do have some feedback from a cruising couple who bought > > one on the lagoon 4300 (?) with the hybrid drive. they have now removed the > > hybrid drive and replaced it with diesel only. On that system they found > > that the electric only system had very short range and they were running the > > engines anyway to provide enough electricity. It was cheaper and simpler to > > just run a diesel if you were going to do any motoring. They do tend to > > motor more that I would while cruising, but I found it interesting that they > > spent the $$ to remove the hybrid system. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:17 AM, kelong_2000 wrote: > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > Wondering if any of these Origamiboats have been outfitted with an electric > > > motor, instead of the traditional diesel? > > > > > > Seems like a nice combination... > > > > > > stumbled across this article of a 45-foot catamaran outfitted with two 10kw > > > motors. > > > http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1837 > > > > > > Under sail, the motor acts as a generator, recharging the batteries. > > > I thought this was a really appealing ability. > > > > > > Here's someone retro fitting old Catalina 30s... > > > he has some interesting youtube videos, also. > > > http://www.propulsionmarine.com/electric/5kw > > > > > > Thanks > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25986|25950|2011-06-21 16:04:41|Paul Wilson|Re: electric motors?|Interesting and surprising stuff, thanks. I wish I could remember where I saw the original article but it was probably 20 yrs ago and so probably not referenced on the net. I do believe it was Practical Sailor but am sure the drag depended on the speed and free-wheeling speed (slip) of the prop. I can't remember how they did the test. I would love to see the in your link done at higher speeds and would love to see the original article to see how they came up with their conclusions.... Cheers, Paul On 6/22/2011 2:06 AM, Kenneth Long wrote: > > interesting experiment someone did - > http://www.catamaransite.com/propeller_drag_test.html > > > > Kenneth Long > > __._,_ | 25987|25950|2011-06-21 16:26:19|Aaron|Re: electric motors?|The Motor that Kasten shows used to be in the $26,000 range for a complete package. The design was originaly Solomon Technologies and that was 4 or 5 years ago. Aaron ________________________________ From: wild_explorer To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, June 21, 2011 8:34:55 AM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors?   --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > OK Brent, I trust you. But....did you read what Kastenmarine write? > http://www.kastenmarine.com/jasmine.htm > I do not see the PRICE of that motor on motor's manufacturer web-site. This is 144V DC motor which requires controller. All these hybrid solutions LOOKS good until you start counting how much it cost + possible complications. Good for some "concept" boat though.... Would be simpler to use hybrid systems as on an icebreakers - electric_generator - electric_motor. No batteries. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | 25988|25950|2011-06-21 16:30:51|brentswain38|Re: electric motors?|You don't have to trust me, just trust the dozens who have crossed oceans and put their origami boats to extreme tests, with little or no damage, in conditions which would have quickly destroyed many other types of boat. There are enough of my designs around, just ask the owners. Kasten makes the claim that origami can only be used for hulls, and not for decks, keels, rudders , skegs cabins, wheelhouses cockpits, etc, ( which my clients have been doing for over 30 years and hundreds of boats.) This I have pointed out to Kasten, and described in my book, which Kasten continues to ignore. Ya Mike, it can't be done, just as sure as the world is flat and the sun and planets all go around the world! Kasten also claims that boats which don't have transverse frames, like the one which pounded on a Baja lee shore in up to 12 foot surf for 16 days, and was pulled of thru 8 to 12 foot surf,with minimal damage, or the one which pounded across 300 yards of Fijian coral reef with minimal damage , or collided with a freighter in Gibralter, with minimal damage , or did a single season passage thru the NW passage, with zero damage, are "Not strong enough." Tell them their boats are "Not strong enough." Kasten's comments display an abysmal amount of willful ignorance of origami boat building, or the reality of modern steel boat building. Read the book, and educate yourself Mike Kasten, before commenting on a subject which you are, clearly, totally ignorant of. By his backward, narrow minded attitude towards progress and innovation , or what has been well proven over decades and hundreds of thousands of miles of trouble free ocean cruising, he has shown himself a very poor source for any useful info on steel boat building. However, it's common for those with a high personal financial stake in keeping boats expensive , to support their own expensive lifestyles, to instinctively attack anyone who offers a more affordable way of solving problems, solutions which make what they are trying to sell, irrelevant.. Elitist chatlines attack and ban people who offer simple and affordable solutions, which would make what their sponsors are trying to sell, irrelevant. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > Kasten Marine is totally full of shit when it mentions origami. They haven't read the book. > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > > > OK Brent, I trust you. But....did you read what Kastenmarine write? > > http://www.kastenmarine.com/jasmine.htm > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: brentswain38 > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 8:52 PM > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors? > > > > > >   > > Victor went electric on a new 36. I don't think the batteries are advanced enough ,nor affordable enough at this point to make it practical in BC. In sunny latitudes,where the trade winds are strong enough to enable a wind generator to give lots of power from a wind generator, and solar panels work well, and reliable winds reduce the need for motoring ( Like the West Indies or Vanuatu) it may well be a practical option. > > I remember an old Finn in Nanaimo, who's alternator was long dead, and he depended on his wind generator and solar panels for power. He spent a whole month with a heavy overcast, and not a breath of wind, all to common here. Batteries don't like to lie uncharged for too long. If you go for day sails, and tie to a dock most of the time, it may be an alternative, but for full time cruising, it is just not practical here, yet. > > The Newcastle Island ferry in Nanaimo has an electric version, but they tie to a power source every nite. > > I get a laugh out of environmentalists talking about the "Clean " electric vehicle alternative that the Chinese are building. > > Where does the bulk of Chinese electricity come from? Coal fired generators! > > Where does most of US electricity come from?Coal fired generators! > > What do you plug your "Clean" electric vehicle into for recharging? A coal burning source of power! > > Some "Clean" solution! > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, j fisher wrote: > > > > > > there has been talk of it, but I have not heard of anyone who has done an > > > actual install. I do have some feedback from a cruising couple who bought > > > one on the lagoon 4300 (?) with the hybrid drive. they have now removed the > > > hybrid drive and replaced it with diesel only. On that system they found > > > that the electric only system had very short range and they were running the > > > engines anyway to provide enough electricity. It was cheaper and simpler to > > > just run a diesel if you were going to do any motoring. They do tend to > > > motor more that I would while cruising, but I found it interesting that they > > > spent the $$ to remove the hybrid system. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:17 AM, kelong_2000 wrote: > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering if any of these Origamiboats have been outfitted with an electric > > > > motor, instead of the traditional diesel? > > > > > > > > Seems like a nice combination... > > > > > > > > stumbled across this article of a 45-foot catamaran outfitted with two 10kw > > > > motors. > > > > http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1837 > > > > > > > > Under sail, the motor acts as a generator, recharging the batteries. > > > > I thought this was a really appealing ability. > > > > > > > > Here's someone retro fitting old Catalina 30s... > > > > he has some interesting youtube videos, also. > > > > http://www.propulsionmarine.com/electric/5kw > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > | 25989|25950|2011-06-21 16:35:11|Paul Wilson|Re: electric motors?|Sending power over lines is not very efficient and losses in the lines are much more than people think, about 7%. For this reason, I like the idea of generating power at home. Unfortunately, wind generators are banned in many cities and even if you put panels on your roof, there is always someone who will complain. Arizona tried to put in a solar farm in the desert and it was rejected because some people thought it would affect their property values. Weren't we all supposed to be on hydrogen fuel cells by now? Paul On 6/22/2011 4:56 AM, Matt Malone wrote: > > "Coal powered" electric cars... > > Yes, it is true the energy has to come from somewhere. However, with a plant that is stationary, the 65%-70% of the energy that comes out of the fuel, and is not turned into mechanical motion, that is instead wasted heat, can be used to heat buildings -- because the plant is stationary. Co-generation. If you take the same fuel and put it in a vehicle, 65-70% of the energy goes into the atmosphere, wasted. Secondly, there is no reason that a plant cannot be equally clean per unit of energy as a car, in fact, they could be cleaner, again, because they are stationary, and weight is not a factor. Yes, most cars burn gasoline, and power plants burn coal, and we are comparing apples and oranges: coal is dirtier than gasoline. But the plant is stationary, more could be done to clean the emissions so only CO2 is produced. > > All of this is driven by economics. Coal is cheap compared to gasoline. > > Why not switch the power plants to natural gas ? If there is natural gas available to run cars, then there is the same amount of natural gas available to generate electricity and charge cars, and at least the rest of the energy might be used for something. > > Nothing is stopping you from charging your electric car from your windmill or solar system. > > Matt > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > From: opusnz@... > Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:09:49 +1200 > Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depending on the governments own data, about 45 percent of the > > electricity in the USA comes from over 100 coal fired power plants. > > Others say up to 57 percent. Imagine a future with 100,000 hybrid > > vehicles or more in a large city. Everyone of them or even a large part > > of them arriving home after commuting to work and plugging in to their > > home. The power surge to the coal fired power plants would be > > unbelievable. The coal fired power plant would spew out more smoke from > > it's coal fired electricity to power the "clean, no air pollution" > > vehicle..... > > > > Conclusion- In many areas of the United States, having an electric > > vehicle that plugs in to a wall is like having a coal powered vehicle. > > > > Until the power plants and infrastructure allow for clean electricity > > and a grid that can handle the peak loads, plug-in electric vehicles are > > a dumb idea. The air would be much cleaner and everyone would be much > > better off simply switching to natural gas. If there was true > > leadership in government, the power plants would be switching over now > > and there would be incentives for car filling stations and > > infrastructure rather than mucking about with expensive electric > > vehicles that won't work for the masses. The government would rather > > listen to the coal lobbyists and their "clean coal" BS. > > > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickens_plan > > > > Rant over.... > > > > Cheers, Paul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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 message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1513/3716 - Release Date: 06/20/11 > > | 25990|25950|2011-06-21 17:17:21|Ben Okopnik|Re: electric motors?|On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 08:30:43PM -0000, brentswain38 wrote: > > However, it's common for those with a high personal financial stake > in keeping boats expensive , to support their own expensive > lifestyles, to instinctively attack anyone who offers a more > affordable way of solving problems, solutions which make what they > are trying to sell, irrelevant.. It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. -- Upton Sinclair 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| 25991|25950|2011-06-21 20:28:07|wild_explorer|Re: electric motors?|There is not much to miscalculate here ;)) I suspect you know very well the limitations of your friend set-up. Just do not give some peoples wrong ideas that they could power 5.25kW electric motor with 1.3kW (continuously rated) generator ;) And, of cause, Honda 2000 gasoline generator does not use ANY gasoline when it is running. Right? ;) As well as there is NO loses in controller/converter, bearings, etc. And you will not blow your generator/fuse by overloading it.... I am not trying to "bring down" your friend's set up, but be honest to yourself - ANY system has its own limitations (electric, hybrid or diesel). And you are absolutely correct - boat 30-40ft does not require much input power to move it up to 3-4 kn (more linear increase power/speed than after 3 kn). IF there is NO wind or current.... Claim about 5kW electric motor is equal to 20HP(~15kW) diesel.... I suspect it is not entirely true ;) You did not specify what electric motor is in that set-up (DC brush or brushless, AC, etc). It might change some calculations, but not much. > You've miscalculated, I'm afraid. The motor draw varies based on the > throttle setting; the fact that he's using 1.5kW does not mean that it's > a 1.5kW motor. That "barely enough" pushes his 34' Cal at 2.9 knots with > the throttle barely open (17 amp draw), but at WOT, it pulls 110 amps. > At 48V, that's about 5.25kW - which, given the lack of losses inherent > in a diesel power train and the available torque at the bottom, is > similar to having a 20HP+ diesel. > > http://boatbits.blogspot.com/search/label/Electric%20propulsion?updated-max=2009-10-20T09%3A46%3A00-04%3A00&max-results=20 > > > You can buy 2HP gasoline engine under $200 as well (comparable replacing cost as your friend's electric motor). > > You've forgotten one minor detail. That gasoline engine? You've got to > buy gasoline for it. Every single day that it runs. And that 2HP? If > you think you're getting that to the water, I've got a bridge right here > in New York that I'll be happy to sell you. :) > | 25992|25950|2011-06-21 20:48:41|Ben Okopnik|Re: electric motors?|On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:27:54AM -0000, wild_explorer wrote: > There is not much to miscalculate here ;)) I suspect you know very well the limitations of your friend set-up. Just do not give some peoples wrong ideas that they could power 5.25kW electric motor with 1.3kW (continuously rated) generator ;) You're starting to sound a little desperate. That's a strawman, and I'd appreciate it if you'd avoid those. > And, of cause, Honda 2000 gasoline generator does not use ANY gasoline when it is running. Right? ;) The Honda is a *backup*. The standard charging method is via solar panels, a wind generator, or occasionally plugging into shore power - none of which use gasoline. Your 2HP motor, by contrast, can't run without gasoline for even a second. Right? :) > As well as there is NO loses in controller/converter, bearings, etc. These are tiny, or almost non-existent by comparison with a standard diesel power train. You're _really_ grasping at straws here... > And you will not blow your generator/fuse by overloading it.... [laugh] Wild, you're making yourself look ridiculous. Should I now start listing the things that can go wrong with a diesel? That's not a competition you can win. > I am not trying to "bring down" your friend's set up, but be honest to yourself - ANY system has its own limitations (electric, hybrid or diesel). Sure - let's be honest, then. You *are* trying to "bring down" his setup, just to prove that you're not wrong. Please admit that, and we'll go on from there. Sure, all systems have their limitations - but in this situation, a system that cost Bob under a grand all told, that pushes his boat at good speeds, and that can can be refueled by simply sitting in the sun - which is what his boat does down in the Caribbean - is extremely difficult to knock, especially with diesel prices sky-rocketing. Not only are you wrong, but you're more wrong every single day. :) I'm not saying that electric power is right for everyone. I _am_ saying that Bob has found that sweet spot, and it's right for his boat and lifestyle. There's a number of other people like him as well, and it's right for them. You're jumping through hoops trying to prove that it's not a reasonable system... and you're wrong, in a large number of cases. I, on the other hand, am not saying "diesel bad". All I'm saying is "electric good, for some people." That's kinda hard to argue against. > Claim about 5kW electric motor is equal to 20HP(~15kW) diesel.... I suspect it is not entirely true ;) Perhaps you should read up on it? Especially the bit about instant max power, which you don't get with diesel. Take a look at the torque curve, and do some comparisons. > You did not specify what electric motor is in that set-up (DC brush or > brushless, AC, etc). It might change some calculations, but not much. Bob's got the setup documented on his site. You want to prove him wrong, you need to do the legwork. :) 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| 25993|25950|2011-06-21 20:52:13|j fisher|Re: electric motors?|> > You did not specify what electric motor is in that set-up (DC brush or > brushless, AC, etc). It might change some calculations, but not much. > From my experience in the hobby end of electric drives the type of motor make a huge difference. A DC brushless is far more efficient than a DC brushed motor. The one thing in the hobby end of electric drive that made is possible was the change in construction methods to work around electric power. When ic engines were used for powering airplanes, they weighed in at 4 to 6 lbs for a 40" wingspan trainer. Now with an electric the same plane is about 1lb. There were changes needed to make it all work. Since electric motors have less vibration, then the whole structure could be made lighter, this meant that the control surfaces saw less force and the servo's could be made smaller. this all fed together to allow a smaller motor which now needs a smaller battery which is lighter yet. So this all adds up and electric power works well. I dont see how you can make the same changes to a boat. I think you will have to wait for the battery technology to get better. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25994|25950|2011-06-21 21:09:33|wild_explorer|Re: electric motors?|--- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > I'm not saying that electric power is right for everyone. I _am_ saying > that Bob has found that sweet spot, and it's right for his boat and > lifestyle. There's a number of other people like him as well, and it's > right for them. I agree with you on that one. It is all personal choice... No matter what system they use. No reason to argue "what system is better/more_economical". ;))| 25995|25950|2011-06-21 21:09:38|Kenneth Long|Re: electric motors?|"I think you will have to wait for the battery technology to get better." Turn the keel into a big battery, maybe get 1000Amp-Hr capacity with the volume available. .. Lots of Pb in the keel to begin with, make the lead do something more useful. The AGM technology seems safe(r).  Epoxy the inside of the keel so its a plastic liner and protect the steel from the acid. insert cylindrical AGM cells. and then epoxy is shut to make a sealed unit.  Have some active electronics to regulate & monitor the recharging to add extra safety. Have vent tubes out to the surface if there's any gas leakage. Might need an electrical tape heating element inside to protect the batteries from extreme cold, as well as have temperature transducers in the keel to monitor the batteries. remember - WWII subs were electric powered under water.. recharged with diesel generators when it was safe to surface. and this was before brushless motors. $0.02   :-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]| 25996|25950|2011-06-21 22:03:58|Linus|Re: electric motors?|I have followed this forum and the electric boat forum for over a year now and have read and researched both a lot. My take on it, if I had the $, would be a BS35 single keel with Nickle-Iron batteries (they use plain distilled water and last over 50 years). If you could build the batteries into the keel somehow, the very heavy Ni-FE batteries would serve a dual purpose. I would then have wind, solar, and a WhisperGen that works off of diesel fuel. The whisperGen also serves to supply heat and hot water. A diesel cook stove would make sense to me also in this arrangement. I am sure this idea sounds totally crazy to most but hey I never was one to follow a crowd :-) William --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Long wrote: > > "I think you will have to wait for the battery technology to get better." > > Turn the keel into a big battery, maybe get 1000Amp-Hr capacity with the volume available. .. Lots of Pb in the keel to begin with, make the lead do something more useful. The AGM technology seems safe(r).  Epoxy the inside of the keel so its a plastic liner and protect the steel from the acid. insert cylindrical AGM cells. and then epoxy is shut to make a sealed unit.  Have some active electronics to regulate & monitor the recharging to add extra safety. Have vent tubes out to the surface if there's any gas leakage. Might need an electrical tape heating element inside to protect the batteries from extreme cold, as well as have temperature transducers in the keel to monitor the batteries. > > remember - WWII subs were electric powered under water.. recharged with diesel generators when it was safe to surface. and this was before brushless motors. > > $0.02   :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > | 25997|25950|2011-06-22 00:01:35|Ben Okopnik|Re: electric motors?|On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 06:09:30PM -0700, Kenneth Long wrote: > "I think you will have to wait for the battery technology to get better." > > Turn the keel into a big battery, maybe get 1000Amp-Hr capacity with > the volume available... Lots of Pb in the keel to begin with, make the > lead do something more useful. The AGM technology seems safe(r).  > Epoxy the inside of the keel so its a plastic liner and protect the > steel from the acid. insert cylindrical AGM cells. That's all done for you already, if you buy the right battery. http://www.oasismontana.com/Solar-one-battery.html Incredibly good engineering in these things. They even give you a 7-year warranty and pro-rate them for 3 more years after that. 750 lbs of "ballast" of that sort would cost you less than $3k and give you over 8kW/h. Given that you'd be saving the cost of the lead ballast, that's a pretty good deal, and a huge amount of energy storage. > and then epoxy is > shut to make a sealed unit. You _really_ don't want to do that, though. If a cell fails, you need to be able to replace it. You also need to water them, as well as take hydro readings once in a while. But overall, it's a good idea. I met a Swedish cruiser on a 70-some-foot boat shortly after I started cruising who had done exactly that - used batteries for his ballast - and he had a bunch of HUGE gang switches and a mechanical chopper circuit. He could switch them all into series, for 240V, and run his Euro appliances, series-parallel for 120V, for US, or all parallel (straight DC) for the most god-awful amount of current you ever heard of. As I recall, his stern would drop open as he got close with his dinghy, and he'd drive it right inside. There was also a tiny jet-ski parked in there. Ridiculously cool. :) 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| 25998|25950|2011-06-22 00:51:30|mauro gonzaga|Re: electric motors?|Brent, I didn't read anything else than this issue of electric motor coupled to controlled pitch prop. which, with good wind runs and makes the motor to become an electric generator. Diesel back-up generator is also necessary. All the system, including batteries and instrumentation is fairly complicated and would cost a fortune, but I was asking about the principle that you were negating, i.e. that the propeller can produce energy. Reading from literature of the same producer of motor/generator, it seems appealing, however your statement that a wind generator is be more efficient kills this application. Hull construction is another story, I think origami simply needs a thicker shell to be as strong as a traditional construction, but material costs far less than labor, nowdays. Regards. MG ________________________________ From: brentswain38 To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:30 PM Subject: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors?   You don't have to trust me, just trust the dozens who have crossed oceans and put their origami boats to extreme tests, with little or no damage, in conditions which would have quickly destroyed many other types of boat. There are enough of my designs around, just ask the owners. Kasten makes the claim that origami can only be used for hulls, and not for decks, keels, rudders , skegs cabins, wheelhouses cockpits, etc, ( which my clients have been doing for over 30 years and hundreds of boats.) This I have pointed out to Kasten, and described in my book, which Kasten continues to ignore. Ya Mike, it can't be done, just as sure as the world is flat and the sun and planets all go around the world! Kasten also claims that boats which don't have transverse frames, like the one which pounded on a Baja lee shore in up to 12 foot surf for 16 days, and was pulled of thru 8 to 12 foot surf,with minimal damage, or the one which pounded across 300 yards of Fijian coral reef with minimal damage , or collided with a freighter in Gibralter, with minimal damage , or did a single season passage thru the NW passage, with zero damage, are "Not strong enough." Tell them their boats are "Not strong enough." Kasten's comments display an abysmal amount of willful ignorance of origami boat building, or the reality of modern steel boat building. Read the book, and educate yourself Mike Kasten, before commenting on a subject which you are, clearly, totally ignorant of. By his backward, narrow minded attitude towards progress and innovation , or what has been well proven over decades and hundreds of thousands of miles of trouble free ocean cruising, he has shown himself a very poor source for any useful info on steel boat building. However, it's common for those with a high personal financial stake in keeping boats expensive , to support their own expensive lifestyles, to instinctively attack anyone who offers a more affordable way of solving problems, solutions which make what they are trying to sell, irrelevant.. Elitist chatlines attack and ban people who offer simple and affordable solutions, which would make what their sponsors are trying to sell, irrelevant. --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, "brentswain38" wrote: > > > Kasten Marine is totally full of shit when it mentions origami. They haven't read the book. > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, mauro gonzaga wrote: > > > > OK Brent, I trust you. But....did you read what Kastenmarine write? > > http://www.kastenmarine.com/jasmine.htm > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: brentswain38 > > To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 8:52 PM > > Subject: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors? > > > > > >   > > Victor went electric on a new 36. I don't think the batteries are advanced enough ,nor affordable enough at this point to make it practical in BC. In sunny latitudes,where the trade winds are strong enough to enable a wind generator to give lots of power from a wind generator, and solar panels work well, and reliable winds reduce the need for motoring ( Like the West Indies or Vanuatu) it may well be a practical option. > > I remember an old Finn in Nanaimo, who's alternator was long dead, and he depended on his wind generator and solar panels for power. He spent a whole month with a heavy overcast, and not a breath of wind, all to common here. Batteries don't like to lie uncharged for too long. If you go for day sails, and tie to a dock most of the time, it may be an alternative, but for full time cruising, it is just not practical here, yet. > > The Newcastle Island ferry in Nanaimo has an electric version, but they tie to a power source every nite. > > I get a laugh out of environmentalists talking about the "Clean " electric vehicle alternative that the Chinese are building. > > Where does the bulk of Chinese electricity come from? Coal fired generators! > > Where does most of US electricity come from?Coal fired generators! > > What do you plug your "Clean" electric vehicle into for recharging? A coal burning source of power! > > Some "Clean" solution! > > > > --- In origamiboats@yahoogroups.com, j fisher wrote: > > > > > > there has been talk of it, but I have not heard of anyone who has done an > > > actual install. I do have some feedback from a cruising couple who bought > > > one on the lagoon 4300 (?) with the hybrid drive. they have now removed the > > > hybrid drive and replaced it with diesel only. On that system they found > > > that the electric only system had very short range and they were running the > > > engines anyway to provide enough electricity. It was cheaper and simpler to > > > just run a diesel if you were going to do any motoring. They do tend to > > > motor more that I would while cruising, but I found it interesting that they > > > spent the $$ to remove the hybrid system. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:17 AM, kelong_2000 wrote: > > > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering if any of these Origamiboats have been outfitted with an electric > > > > motor, instead of the traditional diesel? > > > > > > > > Seems like a nice combination... > > > > > > > > stumbled across this article of a 45-foot catamaran outfitted with two 10kw > > > > motors. > > > > http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1837 > > > > > > > > Under sail, the motor acts as a generator, recharging the batteries. > > > > I thought this was a really appealing ability. > > > > > > > > Here's someone retro fitting old Catalina 30s... > > > > he has some interesting youtube videos, also. > > > > http://www.propulsionmarine.com/electric/5kw > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] | 25999|25950|2011-06-22 10:16:36|David Frantz|Re: electric motors?|Oh yeah the property value argument. I actually get sick hearing this offered up as a reason to keep others from doing their thing or moving society forward as a whole. This nonsense seems to harbor those that have a deep seated desire to torment others especially those that do things different. In the case of a solar project though I can't see a negative here. Having near by solar powering your home ought to be a positive for marketing. There is a positive way to look at new technologies, that is if you have an open mind. Unfortunately many communities engage in mass hysteria anytime something new is suggested that challenges the status quo. Sort of like the arrows shot at the Origami community. As to fuel cells, hydrogen and the like, I don't hold out a lot of hope for long term success. There is a lot of complexity there to deal with and the use of hydrogen is kinda dumb. We will like have more success with compact nuclear sources in the future. Sent from my iPad On Jun 21, 2011, at 4:34 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > Sending power over lines is not very efficient and losses in the lines > are much more than people think, about 7%. For this reason, I like the > idea of generating power at home. Unfortunately, wind generators are > banned in many cities and even if you put panels on your roof, there is > always someone who will complain. Arizona tried to put in a solar farm > in the desert and it was rejected because some people thought it would > affect their property values. > > Weren't we all supposed to be on hydrogen fuel cells by now? > > Paul > > On 6/22/2011 4:56 AM, Matt Malone wrote: >> >> "Coal powered" electric cars... >> >> Yes, it is true the energy has to come from somewhere. However, with a plant that is stationary, the 65%-70% of the energy that comes out of the fuel, and is not turned into mechanical motion, that is instead wasted heat, can be used to heat buildings -- because the plant is stationary. Co-generation. If you take the same fuel and put it in a vehicle, 65-70% of the energy goes into the atmosphere, wasted. Secondly, there is no reason that a plant cannot be equally clean per unit of energy as a car, in fact, they could be cleaner, again, because they are stationary, and weight is not a factor. Yes, most cars burn gasoline, and power plants burn coal, and we are comparing apples and oranges: coal is dirtier than gasoline. But the plant is stationary, more could be done to clean the emissions so only CO2 is produced. >> >> All of this is driven by economics. Coal is cheap compared to gasoline. >> >> Why not switch the power plants to natural gas ? If there is natural gas available to run cars, then there is the same amount of natural gas available to generate electricity and charge cars, and at least the rest of the energy might be used for something. >> >> Nothing is stopping you from charging your electric car from your windmill or solar system. >> >> Matt >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com >> From: opusnz@... >> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:09:49 +1200 >> Subject: Re: [origamiboats] Re: electric motors? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Depending on the governments own data, about 45 percent of the >> >> electricity in the USA comes from over 100 coal fired power plants. >> >> Others say up to 57 percent. Imagine a future with 100,000 hybrid >> >> vehicles or more in a large city. Everyone of them or even a large part >> >> of them arriving home after commuting to work and plugging in to their >> >> home. The power surge to the coal fired power plants would be >> >> unbelievable. The coal fired power plant would spew out more smoke from >> >> it's coal fired electricity to power the "clean, no air pollution" >> >> vehicle..... >> >> >> >> Conclusion- In many areas of the United States, having an electric >> >> vehicle that plugs in to a wall is like having a coal powered vehicle. >> >> >> >> Until the power plants and infrastructure allow for clean electricity >> >> and a grid that can handle the peak loads, plug-in electric vehicles are >> >> a dumb idea. The air would be much cleaner and everyone would be much >> >> better off simply switching to natural gas. If there was true >> >> leadership in government, the power plants would be switching over now >> >> and there would be incentives for car filling stations and >> >> infrastructure rather than mucking about with expensive electric >> >> vehicles that won't work for the masses. The government would rather >> >> listen to the coal lobbyists and their "clean coal" BS. >> >> >> >> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickens_plan >> >> >> >> Rant over.... >> >> >> >> Cheers, Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [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 message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1513/3716 - Release Date: 06/20/11 >> >> > > > ------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: origamiboats@yahoogroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: origamiboats-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links > > > | 26000|25950|2011-06-22 12:24:52|Aaron|Re: electric motors?|I think someone may need to do a little bit more math for the cost of 8Kw battery supply as the $3,000 model is only 12 volt vs the 48v at $12,000 then look at the usable discharge rate. Aaron ________________________________ http://www.oasismontana.com/Solar-one-battery.html Incredibly good engineering in these things. They even give you a 7-year warranty and pro-rate them for 3 more years after that. 750 lbs of "ballast" of that sort would cost you less than $3k and give you over 8kW/h. Given that you'd be saving the cost of the lead ballast, that's a pretty good deal, and a huge amount of energy storage. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]|